It warns that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is closer to a tipping point than feared due to Greenland ice melt, which dilutes seawater salinity and weakens the gyres.
The collapse could come at any time, it could be nonlinear and sudden, and it could lower average temperatures in North European cities by 5 to 15 degrees – turning Britain into southern Alaska. It would set off a global chain reaction and destabilise rainforests. *
C02 dogma has been telling us all via net zero myths we will all boil over in the next 100 years if we dont start dropping our western lifestyle of consumption, cars, flights, holidays, food preferences, from farming the countryside etc. etc
The Left and their corporate sponsors and money men love it of course. It helps them predict capital flows and steer them accordingly
Now along comes Science Advances with a paper on the Gulf Stream that says when the ice melts the AMOC will tip over and temperatures will drop in Northern Europe
I know of a Physics prof who did a PhD in String theory who subsequently decided, his sister (who was one of my wife’s carers,) told me that the theoretical model of the universe isn’t what it has been cracked up to be.
The romantic film of Hawking’s life showed the moment when a volte face occurred in his field of theory in a College lecture room full of ‘specialists’ and experts and Profs.
Science changes its mind continuously as ‘scienza’, knowledge progresses from one model to another. Money men chase money and really like taxpayers money in particular
Science chases funding and produces papers of fiendish complexity that few can properly digest with conclusions that cause people like Goldman Sachs to jump the gun in their interpretations and flood capital in one direction or another whilst normally hedging their bets in another at the same time. Risk on, Risk off style.
This blog has always been sceptical of the push by the elites to vaccinate everybody in the world against absolutely everything from death to being offended by bad smells. It started with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps, Rubella controversy. An unbiased observer would have been gobsmacked at the hatred and abuse hurled at us (much of it from people who claimed to be medical professionals or ‘scientists’ for simply asking why, if it was so important for young children to be vaccinated against measles, could a single measles jab be made available for parents who had reservations against the triple jab. After all Rubella, so trival an infection in general, is only dangerous if a woman catches it during pregnancy and Mumps is only dangerous to males after puberty (when it can cause infertiulity.) The supposedly ‘scientific’ explanations offered were risible (and the threats and warnings were no more dangerous than a smelly fart,) but the anger in those responses made us question the whole vaccine agenda. And the more answers we found the more we became convinced vaccines are a scam. And we are far from the only ones.
Recently, I published an article which discussed how science been hijacked by corporate interests and turned into a dogma no one is allowed to question. After Pierre Kory shared it, it ended up going viral on Twitter.
It got enough traction that even Hotez himself “responded” to it (normally he hides from every chance to debate) by retweeting a zealous adherent of his narrative.
Note: one of the most remarkable things about these tweets is that they disprove themselves, as they deny Hotez believes any of that, but simultaneously states that he does indeed believe it. As this article will show, that type of “logic” is a recurring theme with Peter Hotez.
Based on the feedback I received, I realized a lot of people were interested in knowing what was inside the book and why Hotez is such a frequent target of criticisms. Additionally, given Hotez’s “response,” I felt it was important to share exactly what he proposed doing to those who disagree with him and how the WHO is working behind the scenes to make that happen.
Why Is Peter Hotez Dangerous?
Hotez has long drawn the ire of the vaccine safety community because he will relentlessly defend the narrative and attack anyone who questions vaccine safety.
For example, many parents believe vaccines cause autism because they had a child who was completely normal who then received their vaccines, had a bad reaction to them and then rapidly regressed into permanent autism. Conversely, I do not know of any cases of a child rapidly regressing into autism immediately before their vaccination appointment (which one would expect to happen if the autistic regression “happened by chance”).
Note: I personally believe vaccines cause autism because I and colleagues have seen countless children who:
Have similar adverse reactions to vaccination (e.g., high fevers or a non-stop piercing cry) which is then followed by rapid autistic regression.
Improve once the blood flow to the brain is restored, the cell danger response is resolved, or the inflammation in their system is reduced. While this rarely results in a 100% recovery (due to the brain tissue that is permanently lost), we have many cases where we’ve observed remarkable improvements, even in cases that were treated decades after the initial injury.
Peter Hotez (a pediatrician) in turn has spent years speaking on the mainstream media to debunk any link between autism and vaccines, which eventually led him to write a book about his autistic daughter to “definitively” prove vaccines don’t cause autism that he then brandished around each time he spoke in public.
Note: Hotez’s book doesn’t actually disprove the link between vaccines and autism. Rather, it shares his own subjective trains of logic which predictably led him to conclude that it doesn’t make any sense vaccines could cause autism. Conversely, he reveals the limits of his pediatric knowledge (as he had to take his autistically regressing daughter to a specialist to get a diagnosis) and reveals that his daughter had numerous signs of a debilitating vaccine injury (e.g., the piercing cry) that Hotez to this day has not recognized.
While many things in it were quite cruel, some of the most noteworthy included:
Denouncing parents who wanted to consider the possibility vaccines caused autism because…it diverts some of the funding away from the social support offered to autistic individuals (which cannot come close to meeting the demand for it as caring for autistic individuals is expensive and more and more people are developing autism).
Insisting the only reason parents consider the autism vaccine link was because of a retracted paper Andrew Wakefield wrote (rather than because a lot of people witnessed severe injuries immediately following vaccination). This brief clip illustrates why I don’t support this gaslighting:
Note: for context, Wakefield’s infamous1998 Lancet paper was simply a case study where 12 children who had experienced both neurological regression (i.e., autism) and gastrointestinal issues (e.g., abdominal pain) shortly after MMR vaccination then had their bowels examined where it was shown they did indeed have bowel inflammation. I have often thought the reason why this paper is still viciously attacked decades later is to both to dismiss the idea people might have a legitimate reason for believing vaccines cause autism and to send a harsh warning to the medical journals to never publish anything which threatens the narrative. I am mentioning that here because Hotez frequently utilizes a similar tactic to dismiss any notion severely injured patients might have that the COVID vaccine was responsible for their illness.
Due to his experience in “combatting vaccine misinformation” as public resistance grew towards the slew of mandates that were enacted across the nation during Obama’s presidency, Hotez became much more vocal in both denouncing the antivaccine movement. In turn, Hotez went on a speaking tour across the country calling for Silicon Valley to censor all criticisms of vaccination online.
During Trump’s presidency, Hotez began actively denouncing each science related policy Trump put forward, but once the Pandemic began, Hotez (an avowed left-wing partisan) became a constant cheerleader for Biden’s vaccine program.
In May of 2020, he published an article about COVID-19 and the antivaccine movement which concluded:
To mitigate the consequences of a reinvigorated antivaccine movement in America it will be essential for the White House, together with the NIH and other elements of our science infrastructure, to shape a well-crafted vaccine communication plan. They must also designate a trusted spokesperson who can articulate and carry the message.
While Hotez repeatedly criticized the coronavirus vaccination development efforts during Trump’s presidency (including doing so before Congress), once the administrations transitioned, Hotez quickly worked to become that spokesman and before long was seen on every network zealously promoting whatever the current vaccine messaging was.
Remarkably (as shown later in this article), in addition to contradicting his previous warning against the vaccines, he quickly began contradicting what he had previous said on television (as the vaccines continually failed to meet their promise and the goal posts had to be moved again and again).
During his previous vaccine tour, like many, I erroneously assumed Hotez was a clown (as much of what he said was so absurd I didn’t see how anyone could take it seriously) and the best thing that could be done was to ignore him. This was a big mistake as Hotez’s speaking tour paved the way for the deadly mass censorship of lifesaving COVID-19 treatments and reports severe vaccine injuries we saw throughout the pandemic.
In his current tour, Hotez has continually advanced the idea that anyone who disagrees with the narrative (e.g., by questioning the safety or efficacy of the vaccines) is a danger to society and must be censored. Before long, that turned into for calls for the government to be mobilized against anyone who challenged the corporate “scientific” narrative):
The Neo Nazis who describe themselves as ‘the progressive left’ or ‘progressive liberals’ seem to think they have a divine right to hurl abuse at anyone who disagrees with them.
“Divine right, Ian, but aren’t they all militant atheists?” You might well ask.
They might reject the God of Abraham (but then so do I and I despise the bastards) but they have turned socialism into a religion, with dogma, creed, a sort of catechism (immigration is good, homosexuality must be praised, science is infallible etc.) And like the tyrants of the medieval Catholic Church, their overweening self – righteousness leads them to assume follower of their faith and its various cults e.g. The Fabian Society) are qualified to instruct the rest of us on how we should organise our lives and what thoughts and attitudes are acceptbable.
Here’s a though on that from one of the twentieth century’s leading libertarian thinkers:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis
You’d be surprised (or maybe if you are reading this blog you wouldn’t) how many of the leading left wing intellectuals who are or were members of the Fabian Society have gone of record as saying democracy was obstructive to the socialist agenda and only a benign dictatorship controlled by the financial, commercial and academic elite can solve the world’s problems.
The Original Boggart Blog 
