Category Archives: Freedom is Not Free

Covid Deep Background: Victor Rothschild Was a “Soviet” Agent

The Rothschild-controlled world central banking cartel is behind the covid hoax, Communism, war and world government tyranny.
As the New World Order (“globalism”) reveals its ugly face (the lockdowns, censorship, gender dysphoria, migration,) most politicians, corporations and media are controlled by the people who finagled our national credit cards and create money out of nothing. We are Stockholm syndrome prisoners of psychopaths.
“Treason is the template for contemporary politics. The central banking cartel is erecting its “world governance” dictatorship and anyone who wants to succeed must be loyal to the sick new paradigm and a traitor to the genuine old.”

Henry Makow March 19, 2021


slightly revised from Dec 15, 2018
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

In 1942, Sir Mark Oliphant, a leading British physicist was shocked when a messenger delivered a part from his new radar technology with a warning from MI-5 Security Inspector Victor Rothschild to “tighten up your security.”

A few days earlier Rothschild had visited Oliphant’s Birmingham University lab, quizzed him on his research, and pocketed the three-inch diameter magnetron.

But talk about chutzpah!

Baron Rothschild was himself a Soviet agent! Before returning the magnetron, he had transmitted detailed drawings to Moscow, a fact later confirmed by his KGB handlers.

Oliphant related this story in 1994 to Roland Perry, the Australian author of The Fifth Man (1994, Sedgwick and Jackson, 475 pp).

Between 1935 and 1963, the Soviet Union knew all of Britain’s military and scientific secrets thanks  to “The Cambridge Five” a spy ring that operated in M1-5, MI-6 and the Foreign Office. Western intelligence agencies were rendered ineffective and Allied secrets, including the design of the atomic bomb, were stolen.
The traitors were Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt. But there is a natural reluctance to admit that “the Fifth Man” was Nathaniel Meyer Victor Rothschild (1910-1990), the Third Baron Rothschild, the British head of the world’s richest banking dynasty, which controls the Bank of England.

In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild’s identity to Roland Perry. Col. Yuri Modin, the spy ring’s handler, went on the record.

Perry writes: “According to …Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring’s penetration of British intelligence. ‘He had the contacts,’ Modin noted. ‘He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart in the Foreign Office…who controlled Mi-6.”  (p.89)

You can understand the reluctance. The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders in the world’s central banking system. Victor Rothschild’s career as Soviet agent confirms that these London-based bankers plan to translate their monopoly on credit into a monopoly on everything using government as their instrument, ultimately a “world government” dictatorship akin to Communism.

It adds credence to the claim theRothschilds were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and used the Cold War and more recently the 9-11 hoax, the bogus “War on Terror” and the Covid Hoax, to advance their world hegemony. 

Which is more plausible? One of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away? 

Or that Communism in fact was a deception designed to take away our wealth and freedom in the name of “equality” and “brotherhood”? 


(Evil and Rich)


According to “The Fifth Man”, Victor Rothschild had an IQ of 184. He was a gifted jazz pianist with an intuitive understanding of many scientific disciplines. He saw banking as a dreary affair and preferred the exciting example of his great grandfather Lionel Rothschild (1808-1879) who Benjamin Disraeli immortalized as “Sidonia” in the novel Coningsby (1844).

“No minister of state had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalog of his acquaintances in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari, would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, but which exercise so great an influence on public events. The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with the public pretext, of transactions.” (Coningsby pp. 218-219)

Rothschild studied Zoology at Cambridge where Anthony Blunt recruited him for the KGB about 1936. (Blunt later said it was Rothschild who recruited him, which makes more sense.) Rothschild later joined MI-5 and was in charge of counter sabotage. He instructed the military on how to recognize and defuse bombs. Rothschild was a personal friend of Winston Churchill. Perry writes:

“The two socialized often during the war years. Rothschild used his wealth and position to invite the prime minister to private parties. His entree to the wartime leader, plus access to all the key intelligence information, every major weapons development and his command of counter-sabotage operations in Britain, made Rothschild a secretly powerful figure during the war years…The result was that Stalin knew as much as Churchill about vital information, often before the British High Command was informed.” (xxviii-xxix) 

Cambridgespies.jpg(left, only a society with a death wish would idealize traitors and dupes.) 
Rothschild helped neutralize enemies of the Soviet Union who came to the British for support. For example, he was involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Polish war leader and British ally Wladyslaw Sikorski, whose plane was blown up in July 1944. Sikorski had become burdensome to Stalin after he discovered the KGB had massacred 16,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Woods and elsewhere in 1940.  

In 1944, Blunt, Burgess and Philby all stayed with Victor at the Rothschild mansion in Paris.  Rothschild was briefly in charge of Allied intelligence in Paris and interrogated many prisoners. 

After the war Rothschild spent time in the US overseeing attempts to learn the atom bomb secrets. Due in part to the Cambridge Five, Perry says “the Russians knew about every major intelligence operation run against them in the years 1945 to 1963.”  (xxxi)


Victor Rothschild held many jobs that served to disguise his true role which I suspect was that of a member of the Illuminati Grand Council. (The Illuminati represent the highest rank of Freemasonry.)  He was not a lowly agent. He probably gave orders to people like Winston Churchill, FDR and Stalin.

For example, he ensured that the USSR supported the establishment of the State of Israel.  “He knew the proper back-channels to reach decision-makers in Moscow,” a KGB Colonel told Perry. “Let us just say, he got things done. You only did that if you reached the top. He was very persuasive.” (176)

T Stokes wrote: ” In the Russian Intel archives Lord and Lady Rothschild are codenamed; “David and Rosa.” Rothschild and Churchill were inseparable during W.W.II. The bankers bought Churchill’s services in W.W.II for a recorded £50,000 to lobby for total war with Germany, and in W.W.1. Churchill had a bank account in the name of ‘Colonel Arden,’ to accept these secret donations.”

SSrothschild.jpg(Rothschild making a Satanist hand sign)
The fact that Rothschild was protected until his death suggests this is a ruling class conspiracy.According to Greg Hallett, Anthony Blunt, a fellow spy, was an illegitimate son of George V, half-brother and look-alike to Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor. Until his exposure in 1964, Blunt was knighted and was Curator of the Queen’s art collection. He received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his confession.

Many believe this conspiracy is “Jewish.” Yes, but “generational Satanist” would be more accurate. These  Sabbatean Jews intermarry with Gentiles. The current Lord Jacob Rothschild, the Fourth Baron Rothschild is Victor’s son by his first wife Barbara Hutchinson, pictured above, a non-Jew who converted. In Jewish law, Jacob Rothschild is not a Jew. He married Serena Dunn. By the way, Meyer Amschel,  Victor’s only son by his second marriage, also to a non-Jew, ‘committed suicide’ in 1996. 

While Victor Rothschild pretended to “socialist ideals,” this was just a ruse to entrap misguided idealists. The banker was a conscious traitor. Treason is the template for contemporary politics. The central banking cartel is erecting its “world governance” dictatorship and anyone who wants to succeed must be loyal to the sick new paradigm and a traitor to the genuine old.
While distracting us with sex and sports, our political and cultural “leaders” attack our national, religious, racial and family foundations using  war, homosexuality, pornography, feminism, migration and “diversity.”

Clearly, we need new leaders who will stand up to the owners of the world monetary system. The destiny of humanity is at stake.

First Comment by James Perloff

I read Perry’s book years ago; it was very enlightening, and further affirmed the intimacy between bankers and communists. The Fabian Society’s Nicholas Murray Butler explained it well in 1937: “Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and a world money.” 

The Protocols of Zion also affirmed it: “We appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces – Socialists, Anarchists, Communists . . . . By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way.”

The only reason Victor Rothschild gave Britain’s World War 2 nuclear secrets to the USSR instead of Israel: Israel did not yet exist! The Soviet Union was the Rothschilds’ first proxy state. But with the establishment of their REAL proxy state–Israel–in 1948, the Soviets became expendable. So we had the Cold War, which gave the Zionists a pretext for building up and weaponizing Israel as our “ally.” 

Then, in the mid 1980s, the Rothschilds were ready to have America switch its enemies. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power, signalling the end of the Cold War, and in 1986 Reagan bombed Libya based on a Mossad ruse, marking the start of the “War on Terror.” 

After all, the goyim couldn’t very well die fighting Muslims for Israel in Middle East wars if the dreaded Commies were still a threat.



In the sixties the Daily Express ran a sensational series of articles on Soviet penetration and control of the UK; it made the reputation of the journalist Chapman Pincher. Intel people said their fears were being ignored so began to whistleblow My stepfather worked for the Express, and he would come home with astonishing news the world-beating British aircraft the TSR2. It was cancelled by Socialist sympathizers who wanted to weaken the UK defence capability Peter Wright and Trevor Stokes, and to a lesser extent Arthur Martin, were passing on info direct to the British public. Stokes said Rothschild was not the 5th man; he was the first man Stokes said all along Philby was a traitor and so was Blunt, and it’s untrue that Rothschild had an IQ rating of 184. 
Peter Wright left Marconi to work for our intel people, Rothschild told him if the the government do not honour your old age pension i, will make it up. When Wright retired he was only entitled to a very small pension , and Rothschild the worlds richest man went back on his word, so Wright wrote a tell-all book naming Rothschild. Rothschild sent Wright a first class ticket to come to the UK to discuss it. Rothschild’s threats meant the first chapter on Rothschild and the Jews getting the UK into two world wars, was removed. 
This man Stokes was one of those who interviewed Blunt on spying, homosexual killings of young boys and running messages from our Royals to Hitler, also said that all along Winston Churchill was a spy for Russia, and the defector Anatoli Vrinski passed over the same info that Constantin Volkov did, that Churchill worked for Rothschild. Cambridge was a vile nest of socialists; its tutors were put in place by Rothschild.

Totalitarianism and Perpetual War: 1984, A Case Study

In this literary case study, Prachi Jain balances a close reading of Orwell’s classic 1984 with a discussion of Hannah Arendt and Charles Tilly’s scholarship on totalitarian regimes

By Prachi Jain


Photo credit

George Orwell’s 1984 describes a dystopian society in which the future of London, a city in the super-state of Oceania, is abysmal and steeped in totalitarianism and perpetual war. As seen through the eyes of Winston, a humble citizen turned impassioned rebel, the control of the totalitarian regime “Ingsoc” is an undeniable part of every citizen’s life in Oceania. This, combined with the regime’s state of perpetual war with either Eastasia or Eurasia over disputed territory, makes these themes in 1984 an interesting case for analysis through the lens of Charles Tilly’s “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” and Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism. Through this analysis, it is clear Oceania holds a monopoly on violence and is engaged in war making, in fact perpetual war making, through external and internal extractions. Additionally, it is a totalitarian utopia because of its efficient use of the secret police for identification of objective enemies, its monopoly on facts, and its desensitization of generations of citizens.

The Lost Meaning of ‘War’

In order to understand the complicated foreign relations Oceania has with Eastasia and Eurasia, it is first essential to apply Charles Tilly’s theories about war making as organized crime and war leading to creation of states. According to Tilly, states engage in four actions:

  1. War making: Eliminating or neutralizing their own rivals outside the territories in which they have clear and continuous priority as wielders of force
  2. State making: Eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside those territories
  3. Protection: Eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients
  4. Extraction: Acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities—war making, state making, and protection (Tilly, 1985, p.181)

Oceania is already a state, as described by Emmanuel Goldstein, a former Party member and assumed leader of the Brotherhood: “With the absorption of Europe by Russia and the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting” (Orwell, 2015, p.185). This is important because it highlights that the territories of the three super states are already decided and that all three are evenly matched in terms of strength in warfare. Surely war played a part in creating the three super states themselves; however, the meaning of war in the novel contrasts with Tilly’s argument about war as international relations. While Tilly (1985) points to war being waged to defend or enhance a position within the system (p.184), in the novel, Goldstein’s book explains that war has lost all meaning, since there is no victory, and war is never ending between the three states. The sole purpose of the war between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia is to keep the wheels of industry churning without increasing the wealth of the world. Thus by the Party’s standards, war is peace. The Party’s foreign policy concerning war is reflected in the oppression of its citizens because the continuous war destroys any surplus of consumer goods, keeping inhabitants in a vicious circle of poverty.

Even though motivations for war are interpreted differently by Tilly and Goldstein, war making does indeed lead to state making both in 1984 and in regimes observed by Tilly. As Tilly observed, European governments created a monopoly of violence by extending their officialdom to the local community through bureaucracies, similar to institutions such as the Ministries of Truth, Love, Plenty, and Peace in 1984. Each ministry’s purpose is a contradiction to its name. For example, the Ministry of Truth is a propaganda ministry, responsible for the falsification of historical records. The Ministries of Love, Plenty, and Peace are responsible for brainwashing, overseeing the rationing of food, supplies, and goods, and fueling perpetual war, respectively. Tilly describes how European governments also encouraged the creation of police forces that were subordinate to the government, a feature also seen in the novel as the more dangerous Thought Police. The Thought Police is an organization in Oceania that demands officers address Party loyalty by eradicating scores of people who go against Party beliefs.

Tilly (1985) also argues that protection is a double edged sword because “with one tone, protection calls up images of the shelter against the danger provided by a powerful friend… with the other, it evokes the racket in which a local strong man forces merchants to pay tribute in order to avoid damage” (p.170). When this theory is applied to states, it looks as if states can be organized as racketeers to the extent that false threats are created by the government to continue the cycle of war and maintain the illusion that states protect their citizens whether they demand it or not. This is applicable to Oceania, where it becomes apparent that the Party maintains a perpetual war with either Eastasia or Eurasia in order to manufacture a need for protection and then offer that protection to its citizens. Winston explains how “for several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself” (Orwell, 2015, p. 33). He goes on: “Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia… actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years ago since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in an alliance with Eurasia” (Orwell, 2015, p. 35). There is mass confusion as to whether Oceania is at war with Eastasia or Eurasia because of the Party’s control of information and distortion of the past.

Perpetual war is important, Goldstein argues, because war extracts cheap foreign labor, which distracts the masses and ultimately keeps citizens poor to preserve a hierarchical society (Orwell, 2015, p. 189). Extraction, either internal or external, is the means by which the state executes its promise of protection and intention of state building. Internal extraction demands resources from the state’s own citizens, while external extraction exploits the conquered population’s resources—in this case, labor power. Tilly (1985) describes a need for internal extraction, one that states can monetize in forms “ranging from outright plunder to regular tribute to bureaucratized taxation” (p. 181). These forms of extraction are characterized as those that are obtained from within the state. Tilly (1985) also briefly comments on external extraction, writing that the “power holders’ pursuit of war involved them willy-nilly in the extraction of resources for war making from the populations over which they had control…” (p. 172). In Oceania, these extractions are external because perpetual war involves the conquest and exploitation of people in disputed areas.

Even though Tilly argues that internal extraction will lead to better protection, state making, and war making, I argue that Oceania’s external extraction (use of cheap foreign labor) combined with existing internal extraction efforts develop a state maintenance of sorts to preserve the Party’s quest of economic inequality. Oceania is engaged in war with the other two states for labor power, so “whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores of hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies” (Orwell, 2015, p.187). Consequently, those hundreds of millions of workers are passed around from conqueror to conqueror as expendable resources that help each state sustain a perpetual war. Even without this external extraction, wars are financed by internal extraction (taxes, etc.). However, the non-domestic and low-cost labor keeps the war perpetual and expedites the war effort. External extraction also brings perpetual poverty for Oceania’s citizens by concentrating on the production of war materials, which are eventually destroyed.

Tilly describes what states do: war making, state making, protection, and extraction. In my analysis, Oceania is a state that engages in perpetual war making between Eastasia or Eurasia, not to defend its borders, but to incite fear in its citizens. War keeps power within the elite Inner Party members, thrusting everyone else into unceasing poverty. Tilly’s theory that war making leads to state making shows that power holders want to maintain their monopoly on violence. To do that, they create bureaucracies and strong police forces—elements emphasized through the Ministries of Peace, Plenty, Love, Truth, and the Thought Police in 1984. Furthermore, protection is a legitimized business in Oceania because the Party preserves the citizens in a state of never-ending fear by spreading propaganda about its current enemy. Finally, in addition to internal extraction (collection of taxes or tributes within Oceania) as a means for state making, war making, and protection, Oceania’s ruling party emphasizes external extraction of cheap foreign labor to fund and maintain protection policies and perpetual war. Ultimately, indefinite war making and state making as organized crime are so efficient that Oceania is classifiable as a totalitarian state.

London in a Dystopian Fog: A Totalitarian’s Dream

From page one Oceania is depicted as a totalitarian state, one that has remarkable parallels to The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt. Arendt explains how totalitarian regimes exchange the use of veiled threats and scientific proofs (a means of validating propaganda) in their efforts to direct commands once they are in power, to distinguish between suspect and objective enemies through their use of a secret police, and to spread their ideology so that neighbors appear more threatening. She distinguishes between all three aforementioned actions of totalitarian regimes both during their movement to gain power and after the regime has gained power (Arendt, 1958, p.345). The difference between these regimes is that once they are in power, justification of government actions is irrelevant. The Party of Oceania is examined through the totalitarian regime in power because the novel is set in a period in which the Party already successfully completed the totalitarian movement to power.

Arendt (1958) contends that “science in the instances of both business publicity and totalitarian propaganda is obviously only a surrogate for power. The obsession of totalitarian movements with ‘scientific’ proofs ceases once they are in power” (p. 345). In Oceania, the Party replaced scientific propaganda with direct commands, a characteristic of totalitarian regimes. The Party literally alters history (without justification) to reflect how well their regime is functioning at the present moment. For example, Winston works in the ironically named Ministry of Truth where he updates old newspapers with statements from the Party. One message read “times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue” (Orwell, 2015, p. 38), which meant that the forecasts for various classes of consumption goods were incorrect and Winston had to rewrite the old forecasts to reflect the actual numbers. The control of information without justification is a classic characteristic of totalitarianism in power.

Another distinction for Arendt is the use of secret police or spy services to eliminate enemies, both objective and suspect. Suspect enemies are those who threaten the regime’s movement to power, or political opponents (Arendt, 1958, p.421). Objective enemies are enemies that threaten the existence of the regime in power; Arendt (1958) describes objective enemies as those “…defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it” (p. 423). Suspect enemies are eliminated through the use of provocation in the totalitarian movement; objective enemies, on the other hand, are hunted once the regime is in power (Arendt, 1958, p.422). In the process of hunting down suspected enemies in the movement, the re-education of old party members is common amongst totalitarian regimes, and eventually “it is during this stage that a neighbor gradually becomes a more dangerous enemy to one who happens to harbor ‘dangerous thoughts’ than are the officially appointed police agents” (Arendt, 1958, p.422).

In 1984, Winston describes his neighbor’s children: “Both of them dressed in the blue shorts, gray shirts, and red neckerchiefs which were the uniform of the Spies” (Orwell, 2015, p.23). In Oceania, children are encouraged to join organizations such as the Spies and the Youth League so they can be brainwashed into thinking the Party’s word is the only truth. Eventually, generations of citizens are made paranoid if they oppose Party ideology—war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Although this process happens during the movement phase of totalitarianism, I argue that in 1984 ideology conditioning and paranoia are formally reinforced to younger generations after the regime is in power to ensure the survival of the regime. Winston describes his neighbor and co-worker, Parsons, as “one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended” (Orwell, 2015, p.22). He goes on to describe how Parsons’ kids are becoming indoctrinated with the same loyalty to the Party when one of the kids calls Winston a traitor and accuses him of thought crime (Orwell, 2015, p.22). Undoubtedly, the Party rigorously trains younger generations to report thought crimes even after the regime is in power.

In the case of 1984, it seems an objective enemy is anyone who commits thought crime or goes against Party ideology, which is adjustable according to the changing will of the leader. The members of the Outer Party in Oceania are labeled objective enemies since the “Proles” are left alone and treated like animals. According to Arendt (1958), objective enemies are hunted, not targeted for a reason, so “the task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population” (p. 426). In 1984, the telescreens are mandatory 24/7 monitoring devices that cannot be turned off and are the equivalent of Arendt’s secret police, while the Thought Police officers are just a vehicle for carrying out exterminations or making a person an “unperson” (one who is caught by the Thought Police and eliminated from history itself). An example of an objective enemy is Syme, Winston’s friend in the research department. While conversing with Winston about Newspeak, Syme asserts “…the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought” (Orwell, 2015, p.52) and several chapters later, he is found to never have existed. Therefore, it seems Syme was eliminated just because he was able to understand the true nature of Newspeak (thought conformity), qualifying him as an objective enemy who could spread ideas about the Party’s true intentions.

Oceania embodies the utopian goal of the totalitarian leader because Oceania has all the attributes Arendt defined as totalitarian, only more efficient. The Party in Oceania is totalitarian because the party is already in power and can justify the absence of “scientific” facts, the separation of suspect and objective enemy through the use of a secret police, and the education of younger generations toward Party loyalty.


Analyzing Charles Tilly’s idea of war making and Hannah Arendt’s concept of totalitarianism reveals important similarities to Oceania. Similar to Tilly’s idea of state expansion and war making as organized crime, Oceania engages in state making through its institutions and is in a perpetual war with international states for the illusion of protecting its citizens. Oceania’s external extraction policy further supports the eternal war through its exploitation of cheap foreign labor. Analogous to Arendt’s description of totalitarian regimes, the Party is also totalitarian because of its desire to eliminate objective enemies, be the sole expert on factual information, and desensitize the younger generations of citizens to the ways of the Party.


Arendt, H. (1958). Origins of Totalitarianism (2nd Ed.). Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing Company.

Orwell, G., & Fromm, E. (2015). 1984: a novel. New York, NY: Signet Classics.

Tilly, C. (1985). War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol. Bringing the State Back In (pp. 169-186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Published February 5, 2018

Photo credit: “File:L’œil (48393850751).jpg” by Claude Attard from Toulouse, France is licensed under CC BY 2.0


Leaked Hospital Memo Reveals 500 Percent Rise in Stillbirths; Fetal Specialist Explains Likely Cause | Epoch TV

Watch here

Last week, a hospital memo was leaked to us by a nurse in Fresno, California. The note revealed how this hospital is experiencing a dramatic rise in the number of stillbirth cases. Whereas before, the hospital would see an “average of one to two every three months”—they were now seeing upwards of 22 stillbirths per month.

This leaked anecdote seems to align with other anecdotal evidence across the country, showing a potential rise in problems with fertility, miscarriages, and fetal development.

And so, in order to get a clearer picture of what is happening, and why, we spoke with Dr. James Thorp, a Florida-based OB-GYN who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine.

This video is brought to you by Sekur:

Stay tuned for our newsletter so you won’t miss out on our exclusive videos and private events.

Listen to Podcasts:
iTunes Podcast:
Spotify Podcast:
Google Podcast:

Follow Facts Matter on social media:
Truth Social:
Instagram: @epoch.times.roman

Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List“.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


BUY Jan 6 DVD:, Promo Code “Roman” for 20% off.


Leaked Hospital Memo Reveals 500 Percent Rise in Stillbirths; Fetal Specialist Explains Likely Cause | Facts Matter

The crushing power of the pharmaceutical industry – a sorry tale

Here is a sorry tale about the power of the pharmaceutical industry to crush all dissent … dead. The key player is Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who some of you may know. He is a consultant cardiologist. Very bright, sparky, willing to take on the establishment when required. I get on well with him, we communicate on many different issues. He has his detractors – I am not one of them.

First, some background, to put this tale into some kind of context. It is part of an e-mail that I was sent, by Aseem. I I have modified it slightly. Basically, I changed it from first person and got rid of some typos. I have also checked with other independent witnesses, to ensure the accuracy of events:

‘Dr Aseem Malhotra was invited to deliver a keynote lecture/speech at the International Medical Graduates dinner by its organiser, Consultant Psychiatrist and Chair of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO) Dr JS Bamrah CBE. The event took place on Monday 27th June as a fringe event of the British Medical Association (BMA) Annual Representative Meeting (ARM).

Other chief guests included the Chair of the BMA (Dr Chaand Nagpaul) and the President of the BMA (Professor Nina Modi). The title of his talk was “Advocating for REAL evidence-based medicine”.

The talk was well received with excellent personal feedback including the Chair of BAPIO, Dr JS Bamrah. The event also commemorated Aseem’s late father Dr Kailash Chand Malhotra who died suddenly last year. He was honorary vice president of the BMA and on the BMA council.

The organiser of BMA education events Beryl De Souza also personally told Aseem it was a brilliant talk, and the next day sent him a text message asking him to present the same talk as an educational webinar to BMA members.

Aseem had also given a talk to over one hundred BMA members earlier in the year about heart disease, statins and cholesterol with excellent feedback. The Chairman of the British Egyptian Medical Association who was very complimentary about the talk also met Aseem the following day and asked if he would give the same talk to his members.’

It all sounded rather splendid, and mainstream, and suchlike.

But, gentle reader, beware. For there is a malignant ghost hovering over this feast. The ghost of ‘anti-vaxxer present’. Now it doesn’t take much to be accused of being an anti-vaxxer. The phrase ‘I have some concerns about mRNA vaccines’ is usually enough to be mercilessly attacked by the dementors, controlled by Facebook, Twitter and suchlike.

In this case, during his talk, Aseem presented data from a study called ‘Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials.’

It is a pre-print paper, at this point, and has not yet been peer-reviewed. It is due to be published in the Elsevier journal SSRN. You can see the full paper here 1.

The authors, from such places as Stanford, UCLA and Maryland, are of high academic standing. What they did was to look at serious adverse events associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The Discussion section of the paper states the following:

‘The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.’

The ‘abstract’ further states, in the results section:

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8) respectively.

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).’

Now, in English. According to this paper, the risk of a serious adverse event (caused by the vaccine) was greater than the reduction in hospitalisation from COVID-19 (prevented by the vaccine). Therefore, on this metric, the vaccine(s) may be doing more harm than good. [Please don’t hit me, I said ‘may’.]

Thus, Aseem committed the greatest sin imaginable today. He dared to mention a scientific study that asked questions about mRNA vaccines. And, of course, oops, I have now mentioned it too. Which clearly makes me an anti-vaxxer. Yes, quoting scientific papers is now, virtually, a crime. So, I have to strongly advise you … don’t look at the paper. Else you will become contaminated with impure thoughts and may have to be stomped on.

Oh, what a world we now live in.

Anyway. Back to Aseem’s story. Here he was, basking in glory. To top it all, he was then presented with an award. To quote … with some slight edits:

‘The next day Dr JS Bamrah informed Aseem that he was going to receive an award, to be presented by the BMA Chair, Dr Nagpaul. The award was “Champion of Preventative Medicine”. He had spoken to Dr Nagpaul on the phone who agreed.

The award was given in a break at the BMA conference. Dr Nagpaul was asked where he wants the photo to be taken of him presenting Aseem with the award. He suggested the main podium at the BMA conference hall, but the picture quality is poor, so they go elsewhere, and Dr Nagpaul was more than happy for Aseem to receive the award in front of a board in the main lobby with the BMA logo in the background. This was NOT Aseem’s suggestion.

Later that afternoon (Tuesday 28th) Aseem received the photo via text and put a tweet out (see below) in the evening with the three photos of Aseem receiving the award including with a larger group of people including the BMA president which read:

“Truly honoured to receive the “Champion of Preventive Medicine award from the Chair of the BMA @Cnagpaul. In my talk I said the science alone isn’t enough; opposition from vested interests needs to be overcome to save the #NHS. It’s time for REAL evidence-based medicine (fist bump emoji).’

But the all-seeing eye of Sauron had been ‘observing’ this unfortunate series of events. Grima Wormtongue was dispatched to whisper in the ears of those in power. ‘Yes, my precious (to mix my characters, stories, and metaphors, horribly), nasty hobbitses won’t be seen to criticise vaccines will they.’

Behind the scenes … all hell broke loose. Someone had dared to mention a study mildly critical of vaccines, and the BMA chairman GAVE HIM AN AWARD. Off with his head. ‘Whose head, please?’

‘Everyone involved in this treachery.

‘Yes boss, sure boss, right away boss….’

The tale continues:

‘The next morning, Aseem noticed a missed call and message from Dr Bamrah. “Please call Aseem. Need your tweet modified. Delete the bit about BMA council. Just say Chaand Nagpaul. Happy to explain.”

Aseem did as requested and sent another tweet specifically clarifying that it was an IMG forum award and was given to me by Chaand Nagpaul, without mentioning the BMA at all. Aseem also messaged Dr Bamrah in reference to Chaand which he also shared with him “He needs to stand his ground and not capitulate. We’ve compromised by deleting the tweet. My dad would say always stand up to bullies and cowards – that’s what he taught me.”

Chaand (CN) replies to me “Aseem the issue is who the award originated from. They’re questioning my governance – it was not an award “from me”. I know it’s semantics but real uproar”

AM: “Ok. I will delete the tweet altogether”

CN: “Much wider than this individual – within BMA too sadly – everything attributed to me has to be cleared with BMA comms while BMA chair”

AM: “Tweet deleted”

CN: “I’m going to get some sleep! It’s been incessant”

BMA releases a statement from the Chair that is read out at the conference essentially stating that the BMA does not endorse the views of Dr Aseem Malhotra and that Chaand had not actually given me the award but had “handed it over” due to politeness.

Why such a storm? Why the behind-the-scenes desperate machinations to ensure that the BMA could not, and would not be associated in any way with Aseem? Why the personal humiliations and climbdowns? Why the control over Chaand Nagpaul – who was stepping down as BMA chairman anyway? The incessant tweeting and criticism.

Was it because Aseem has always been critical of vaccines? I refer you to the fact that in early 2021 Aseem was asked to help promote the COVID-19 vaccine to the, so called, BAME (Black Asian Minority Ethnic) community. Yes, he promoted the vaccine to a particular vaccine hesitant community 2.

However, he has also, like me, been alert to the possibility of potential harm that the vaccines may cause. He is also, like me, well aware of the way that data from clinical studies can be, and is, manipulated and biased.

We both cast a highly sceptical eye over any ‘evidence’ that emerges from commercial organisations. Neither of us happily chants ‘two vaccines good, four vaccines better.’ We are both in the ‘but that man is wearing no clothes’ section of the audience. A rather smaller section, it must be said. Usually containing only two people. Him, and me.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to find out who, exactly, started the ‘bring me the head of Aseem Malhotra’ movement within the BMA. Could it be, I wondered, that they had a commercial conflict of interest? By which I mean, had they worked with a pharmaceutical company that made mRNA COVID19 vaccines.

Well, I have spoken to people within the BMA, at a high level, to find out exactly what went on. They confirm the details of Aseem’s story. But wish to remain nameless. It seems that a certain individual, who led the attack on Aseem, has close connections with Moderna. Surprise, surprise. As you can tell, I am treading on potentially libellous ground here, so I am not naming names. I am currently involved in a monstrously long, and complex libel suit, and I don’t want another one at present, thank you very much.

This all comes hot on the heels of an article in the British Medical Journal by Maryanne Demasi. A medical journalist whose career was destroyed when she produced and presented programmes in Australia that were critical of the cholesterol hypothesis and the, potential, over-prescribing of statins. They even tried to get her PhD removed, to further destroy her reputation.

The BMJ article was called ‘From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?’

‘Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of investigational medicines before they hit the market. But do they have sufficient independence from the companies they are meant to regulate?’3

The short answer is no. Drug regulators have been bought and paid for by the companies that they are supposed to regulate. But the commercial influence spreads far wider than the regulators. Key opinion leaders (KOLs) who carry out the big clinical trials, who speak at conferences, and who appear at the top of influential medical organisations and write the guidelines – are often bought and paid for too.

There is virtually no area of the medical world that has not been lobbied, infiltrated and – in many cases – paid for and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. We have a major crisis on our hands, that no-one is doing anything about.

Aseem’s tale is just one more example of the fact that anyone who dares to stand up to the relentless marketing of more and more drugs, and vaccines, will be attacked and crushed. In this case, under the banner of the British Medical Association. An organisation that I am increasingly unproud to be a member of. If the BMA can no longer support freedom of speech, then no-one can. The future looks bleak.

To quote George Orwell. ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.’




Source: 18th July 2022

A Further Investigation into the Leaked EMA Emails & Confidential Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Related Docs

By Sonia Elijah

In June, Trial Site News published a bombshell investigative report on the leaked European Medicine Agency (EMA) emails and other Pfizer-related confidential reports, which exposed concerning facts in the run-up to the authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. It revealed:

  • A politically driven race between key regulators in their rush to authorize the vaccine.
  • By late November 2020, regulators including, US FDA, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada and the UK’s MHRA, were all aware of the significant loss of RNA integrity of the commercial batches (~55% mRNA integrity) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine compared to the clinical ones (~78% mRNA integrity). This was classified by EMA as a “major objection” along with observed visible particles, which were classified as “impurities.”
  • A leaked 26 November PowerPoint presentation of a meeting between Pfizer-BioNTech and the EMA revealed how this major objection was shockingly ‘resolved’- the RNA integrity specification was simply lowered to 50%, therefore half of all mRNA molecules in the commercial batches were allowed to be truncated (not intact).
  • The potential implications of the RNA integrity loss in terms of safety and efficacy were unknown.

This report focuses on further leaked emails with specific reference made to the European Commissioner, Ursula von der Leyen and the unusual extent she was willing to go in corralling member states (MSs) in avoiding the use of Article 5 (2) (their national Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines) but go with an EU Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). It shines light on other leaked EMA sensitive documents: the 24 November, 2020 Quality Office CMC observations presentation by the BWP (Biologics Working party) and Rapporteur’s Rolling Review assessment report, revealing more evidence which supports the ‘major objections’ discussed in the original Trial Site News report. It looks at unredacted versions of Pfizer vaccine contracts and the EC’s Advance Purchase Agreement signed in November 2020 with Pfizer and BioNTech ‘for the development, production, priority-purchasing options and supply of a successful COVID-19 vaccine for EU Member States.’

No stranger to scandal

Ursula von der Leyen has been under intense public scrutiny over her private negotiations of a multi-billion-euro vaccine deal (the EU’s biggest contract) via secret texts and phone calls made with Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, contravening the Commission decision for a steering board to ‘provide guidance throughout the evaluation process.’ Furthermore, she refused to grant public access to the secretive text messages exchanged between Bourla and herself, when called to do so. A European Court of Auditors published an alarming report, which stated ‘we asked the Commission to provide us with information on the preliminary negotiations for this agreement (scientific experts consulted and advice received, timing of the talks, records of the discussions, and details of the agreed terms and conditions). However, none was forthcoming.’

The fire has also been heating up for Pfizer’s Bourla, when he was called to testify before the European Parliament’s Special Committee on COVID-19 to face questions over those secretive vaccine deals but last minute pulled out from facing the committee.

The leaked emails

The original Trial Site News investigative report highlighted the enormous pressure exerted by the EC (European Commission) on the EMA to grant CMA under a highly accelerated timeline. An email from Noel Wathion (EMA’s former deputy executive director) was published, which revealed a ‘rather tense’ TC (teleconference call) with the European Commissioner (Ursula von der Leyen) which was ‘at times even a bit unpleasant’.

A delay of several weeks..was not easily acceptable for the EC [European Commission]’ Wathion states. He also reveals ‘how political fall-out seems to be too high even if the “technical” level at the MSs could defend such a “delay” in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible.’

Below is an email from Hilde Boone of the EMA, stating that ‘she [von der Leyen] will be prepared to call relevant health ministers personally to avoid the use of Art 5(2).’

Article 5 (2) vs CMA

 Article 5 (2) of Directive 2001/83 states ‘Member States may temporarily authorise the distribution of an unauthorised medicinal product in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation any of which could cause harm.’ In other words, it’s the equivalent of an Emergency Use Authorization at the member state level. It can be done very quickly because the medicinal product doesn’t need to go through the standard national authorization process.

An expert on EU law explained to Trial Site News the downside of MSs using Art. 5 (2), is that it would have given rise to competition amongst member states, leading to an unequitable access/distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for those MSs who preferred to wait for the EU’s CMA (which takes longer since it’s supposed to follow a controlled and robust framework providing safeguards). An EU CMA helped ensure that the vaccines would have been available to all members states, at the same time, which was one of the objectives of the EU COVID-19 strategy.

However, could there have been further reasons why von der Leyen was desperate for the MSs to avoid Art 5 (2) that she was willing to call every relevant health minister herself?

In the email below from Noel Wathion, he states ‘since the 1st option still is to aim for a CMA rather than an Art 5 (2) coupled or not with an Art 5 (3)..’

Article 5(3) states: ‘Member States shall lay down provisions in order to ensure that marketing authorisation holders, manufacturers and health professionals are not subject to civil or administrative liability for any consequences resulting from the use of a medicinal product…’

The fact that Wathion points out that an Art. 5 (2) can be coupled or not with an Art. 5 (3), raises the important question whether member states would have had the option to not give indemnity to the marketing authorisation holders (in this case BioNTech) and manufacturers (BioNTech and Pfizer).

The Predatory Pfizer Contracts and Advance Purchase Agreements

Given what we know about the leaked Pfizer contracts made available by the non-profit consumer advocacy organization, Public Citizen; this pharmaceutical company has seemingly bullied countries into silence; can go after sovereign state assets (under the waiver of sovereign immunity) and enjoy full indemnity- exemption from legal liability that may result from their product- in fact it’s the Purchaser who is made liable on their behalf. This means governments have had to pay compensation to citizens who have suffered from a vaccine adverse event, not the vaccine manufacturer.

The screenshot below is taken from the unredacted version of the advance purchase agreement (APA) between the European Commission (EC), acting on behalf and in the name of member states, Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech (collectively ‘the Contractor’) signed in November 2020 (around the same time the leaked EMA emails were generated). It states ‘each Participating Member State shall indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor, their Affiliates..from and against any and all liabilities incurred..relating to harm, damages and losses..arising from or relating to the use and deployment of the Vaccines..’

However, information posted on the EC’s website states that under an EU Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA), liability is with the holder of the marketing authorisation’ (which in this case is BioNTech). This directly conflicts with the APA that the EC signed with Pfizer and BioNTech (for 200 million vaccine doses priced at 15.50 Euros per dose excl VAT), a month before CMA was granted. It’s noteworthy that the EC published a heavily redacted version of the identical APA, any section related to indemnity/liability or simply considered ‘sensitive’ has been censored.  

Another important point to consider when it comes to Art 5 (2) vs an EU CMA- is that given some European countries mandated the vaccine for adults, at-risk age groups and certain job sectors – it’s highly unlikely those MSs would have been able to do that with an unauthorised medicinal product, which these vaccines would have been classified under Art 5 (2).

The CMC issues

Wathion’s November 20, 2020 email raises several concerning points -‘there are still issues with both (CMC seems to be a concern for the Pfizer/BioNTech and the rolling review for Moderna just started giving less time to review) so it needs to be seen if all this can be sorted out on time, whilst not compromising the robustness of the review.

The original Trial Site News report discussed what those CMC (Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls) issues were with Pfizer/BioNTech, particularly the loss of RNA integrity in the commercial batches and the unknown visible particles observed. Wathion tellingly states, ‘there are still issues’ speaks to the notion these ‘issues’ were not solved but had been ongoing. Wathion’s concern of ‘compromising the robustness of the review’ because of the need to authorise ‘on time’ is emphasized. This worry of speed over safety is reflected in other leaked emails, particularly by Wathion.

The report also contained a leaked email from Veronika Jekerle, EMA’s Head of Pharmaceutical Quality Office, where she outlined the 3 agreed major objections and the conclusion of the BWP (Biologics Working Party) regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Her email was sent on the November 24th the same day as the BWP presentation. Below, are a series of screenshots of the actual leaked BWP power point presentation (which Jekerle references in her email), entitled ‘EMA Quality Office CMC Observations.’ At the end of her email she thanks, ‘Ton, Brian and Claudio.’ Ton van der Stappen and Brian Dooley are named in the screenshot of the slide below.

The screenshot below presents wide-ranging data, which backups one of the major EMA objections in reference to the significant drop in %RNA integrity between the clinical and commercial batches. It’s noteworthy that batches from Pfizer’s Andover, USA (~62%) and Puurs, Belgium (~55%) sites were reported as having significantly lower %RNA integrity than batches provided by BNT (BioNTech) and Polymun.

The screenshot below is taken from the unredacted APA signed by the EC. It specifies that the majority of Europe’s vaccine supply will ‘come from Pfizer’s manufacturing site in Puurs, Belgium.’ This is concerning given the data shows that the %RNA integrity of batches from that site were the lowest at 55%, compared to other sites.

The screenshot below shows the acceptance criteria of various BNT 162B2 Drug Product lots. Drug Product refers to ‘medication in its marketed form, including its fillers, coloring agents, and other active or inactive agents.’ The acceptance criteria for Emergency Supply is greater or equal to 50%, which happens to be just below the batches with the lowest %RNA integrity supplied by Pfizer, Puurs. For some reason the acceptance criteria for the clinical Drug Product Lots differs and is set higher at greater or equal to 60%.

CMC (Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls) ‘involves defining manufacturing practices and product specifications that must be followed and met in order to ensure product safety and consistency between batches.’ Given the data shown above, it’s evident there were significant CMC issues regarding the inconsistency of the %RNA integrity between batches, which is reflected in the leaked EMA emails and documents. What’s concerning is that the manufacturer (Pfizer/BioNTech) claimed, “The efficacy of the drug product is dependent on the expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.”

It’s baffling how lowering the specification down to 50% was potentially how this major objection was ‘solved.’ According to a leaked Rapporteur’s Rolling Review Assessment (revised report date: 25 November, 2020) compiled by the CHMP and PRAC rapporteurs- they found the ‘current acceptance criteria’ particularly troubling. The report states, ‘no characterisation data on RNA integrity and truncated forms is presented and the potential safety risks associated with truncated RNA isoforms are not addressed. This is especially important considering that the current DS and DP acceptance criteria allows for up to 50% fragmented species.’

Truncated (shortened by missing either top or end section) RNA is defined as a ‘product-related impurity’ and the fact that potential safety risks arising from this fragmented species ‘are not addressed’ is highly alarming.

Reference is made to ‘the current DS and DP acceptance criteria,’ this implies that it was not always set at that level and perhaps it had been changed (lowered). The question is why? Could it have been that process 2 (the manufacturing of the commercial batches) was just not replicable at the same specification level to the clinical batches (small scale) of process 1, therefore a lower standard was set in order for CMA to be granted?

Trial Site News communicated with the EMA regarding the content of the leaked emails and documents. The EMA press office’s prompt response has been published below in its entirety.

“The investigation of the published material revealed that the correspondence was manipulated by the perpetrators prior to publication. Not all of the documents were published in their integral, original form and may have been taken out of context. Whilst individual emails were authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes were created and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.

 These documents do not present a full picture of the assessment of Comirnaty, the COVID-19 vaccine developed by BioNTech/Pfizer. They show the situation up to the beginning of December 2020, when the hack was discovered, but do not mention the considerable amount of additional data, information and clarifications submitted by BioNTech/Pfizer up to 21 December 2020, the day when EMA’s committee for human medicines (CHMP) gave its recommendation to grant a marketing authorization for this vaccine.

 Comirnaty works because the mRNA it contains provides instructions for producing a spike protein which triggers an immune response. Its efficacy therefore depends on the presence of suitable amount of intact mRNA, which is known to be relatively unstable. What the documents show is how the assessment of any medicine works: following scrutiny of the data submitted by the company, the CHMP had questions about the integrity of mRNA and raised them formally as a ‘major objection’. This is an integral part of the assessment of any medicine. If major objections remain unresolved, they preclude the granting of the marketing authorisation. In this case, the company addressed the issues raised satisfactorily and subsequently supplied the required information and data after beginning of December 2020, which allowed EMA to move towards a positive opinion for this vaccine.

 The public assessment report of Comirnaty summarises the conclusions of the CHMP on this issue and details the steps taken during the marketing authorization procedure of Comirnaty as well as the obligations placed on the marketing authorisation holder to carry out additional studies to closely monitor the pharmaceutical quality of vaccine. These obligations were also included in the Product Information published at the time of the CHMP opinion.

 Even in a public health emergency as COVID-19, there has always been consensus across the EU not to compromise standards and to base any recommendation on the available scientific evidence on a vaccine’s safety, pharmaceutical quality and efficacy, and nothing else. Authorizations are only granted when the evidence shows convincingly that the benefits of vaccination are greater than any risks posed by a vaccine.”

Originally published in Trial Site News.

UK Doctor Turns Against Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines, Calls for Global Pause

A doctor who promoted COVID-19 vaccines is now calling for health authorities around the world to pause the administration of two of the most-widely utilized COVID-19 vaccines, saying that the benefits from the vaccines may not outweigh the risks.

Epoch Times – By Zachary Stieber and Jan Jekielek September 26, 2022 Updated: September 28, 2022

Dr. Aseem Malhotra. (Courtesy of Dr. Aseem Malhotra)

“There is more than enough evidence—I would say the evidence is overwhelming—to pause the rollout of the vaccine,” Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist and evidence-based medicine expert, told The Epoch Times.

A paper from Malhotra detailing the evidence was published on Sept. 26.

Among the citations is a recent reanalysis of the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials that concluded that vaccinated trial participants were at higher risk of serious adverse events. He called the study a “smoking gun.”

Malhotra also pointed to the lack of reduction in mortality or severe disease in the trials, which were completed in 2020.

Taking into account death rates and other figures since then, the number of people who need to be vaccinated to prevent a single COVID-19 death ranges from 93,000 for people aged 18–29 to 230 for people aged 80 and older, according to an analysis of UK safety and effectiveness data by the Health Advisory & Recovery Team.

The author also noted that serious side effects have been detected after the trials, such as myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation.

Overall, looking at the absolute benefits and drawbacks of the vaccines, it’s time to halt their usage and allow authorities and other experts to closely examine the data to see if the vaccines should be used again down the road, according to Malhotra.

The paper was published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in two parts following peer review.

Pfizer and Moderna didn’t return requests for comment.

Reversal of Opinion

Malhotra received the Pfizer primary series in January 2021. He became a promoter of the vaccine, even appearing on “Good Morning Britain” to advise Indian film director Gurinder Chadha to get the vaccine. Chadha did so shortly after.

Malhotra said he began digging into vaccine data after his father, Dr. Kailash Chand, suffered a cardiac arrest at home approximately six months after receiving Pfizer’s vaccine.

The post-mortem showed two of Chand’s major arteries were severely blocked, even though Malhotra described his father as a fit person who didn’t have any significant heart problems.

Malhotra began reading about post-vaccination issues, including a study abstract in the journal Circulation that identified a higher risk of a heart attack following vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and a study from Nordic countries that identified a higher risk of myocarditis.

While authorities have claimed that myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 than vaccination, many studies have found otherwiseat least for certain age groups. Some papers have found no increased incidence of heart inflammation for COVID-19 patients.

Malhotra has come to believe that his father’s death was linked to the vaccine.

“I’ve always approached medicine and science with uncertainties because things constantly evolve. And the information I had at the time is completely different to the information I have now,” Malhotra told The Epoch Times. “And in fact, it is my duty and responsibility as the information has changed to act on that information. And that’s what I’m doing.”

HALIFAX, ENGLAND – JULY 31: Dr Lisa Pickles draws up the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a new ‘Pop Up’ vaccination centre in the Big Top of Circus Extreme in Shibden Park on July 31, 2021 in Halifax, England. The pop-up clinic will be situated just outside the UKs largest circus Big Top so even people who do not have tickets to the show will still be able to get their vaccine. All adults in England have been able to book a first dose since June 18, but the latest figures show that nearly a third of young adults (aged 18 to 29) in the country have still not had one. A doctor prepares the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination center in Halifax, England, on July 31, 2021. (Photo by Ian Forsyth/Getty Images)

Response to Criticism

After the new paper was published, critics noted that Malhotra is a board member of the Journal of Insulin Resistance.

He acknowledged the position but said the article went through an independent peer review process and that he has no financial links to the journal.

The doctor encouraged people to view his publication history, which includes articles in the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

He said he chose to submit the paper to the insulin journal for several reasons, including it being “one of the few journals that doesn’t take money from the pharmaceutical industry.”

“I don’t think that there’s any validity to question the integrity of the piece,” he said. “People can argue I’ve got an intellectual bias. We all have intellectual biases, but there’s certainly no financial bias for me.”

Paper Gains Support

Leading scientists say the new paper is important.

“We fully believe that vaccines are one of the great discoveries in medicine that has improved life expectancy dramatically, however, mRNA genetic vaccines are different, as long-term safety evaluation is lacking but mandatory to ensure public safety,” Sherif Sultan, president of the International Society of Vascular Surgery, said in a statement.

Sultan also noted that the findings “raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side effects and underscore the established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Stanford, said that Malhotra “makes a good case that there is considerable heterogeneity across age groups and other comorbid conditions in the expected benefits and expected side effect profiles of the vaccine” and “finds that while there may be a case for older people to take the vaccine because the benefits may outweigh expected harm that may not be the case for younger people.”

Dr. Campbell Murdoch, who advises the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the study “describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicine” and the situation has made it “impossible for patients and the public to make an informed choice about what is best for their health and life.”

Some others criticized the paper, including Dr. Victoria Male, an immunologist at Imperial College London.

Male wrote on Twitter that the table in the paper outlining the number of people in each age group estimated to need a vaccination to prevent a COVID-19 death “is quite in favour of vaccination.”

Zachary Stieber : REPORTER & Jan Jekielek : SENIOR EDITOR

Source: Epoch Times

Will There Be War With Russia?

Americans have played a leading role in what is shaping up as a Second Cold War.


(Photo: Mr. Tempter/Shutterstock)

Patrick J. Buchanan Jul 16, 2022

At the NATO summit in Madrid, Finland was invited to join the alliance. What does this mean for Finland?

If Russian President Vladimir Putin breaches the 830-mile Finnish border, the United States will rise to Helsinki’s defense and fight Russia on Finland’s side.

What does Finland’s membership in NATO mean for America?

If Putin makes a military move into Finland, the U.S. will go to war against the world’s largest nation with an arsenal of between 4,500 and 6,000 battlefield and strategic nuclear weapons.

No Cold War president would have dreamed of making such a commitment—to risk the survival of our nation to defend territory of a country thousands of miles away that has never been a U.S. vital interest.

To go to war with the Soviet Union over the preservation of Finnish territory would have been seen as madness during the Cold War.

Recall: Harry Truman refused to use force to break Joseph Stalin’s blockade of Berlin. Dwight Eisenhower refused to send U.S. troops to save the Hungarian freedom fighters being run down by Soviet tanks in Budapest in 1956.

Lyndon B. Johnson did nothing to assist the Czech patriots crushed by Warsaw Pact armies in 1968. When Lech Walesa’s Solidarity was smashed on Moscow’s order in Poland in 1981, Ronald Reagan made brave statements and sent Xerox machines.

While the U.S. issued annual declarations of support during the Cold War for the “captive nations” of Central and Eastern Europe, the liberation of these nations from Soviet control was never deemed so vital to the West as to justify a war with the USSR.

Indeed, in the 40 years of the Cold War, NATO, which had begun in 1949 with 12 member nations, added only four more—Greece, Turkey, Spain and West Germany.

Yet, with the invitation to Sweden and Finland to join as the 31st and 32nd nations to receive an Article 5 war guarantee, NATO will have doubled its membership since what was thought—certainly by the Russians—to have been the end of the Cold War.

All the nations once part of Moscow’s Warsaw Pact—East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria — are now members of a U.S.-led NATO—directed against Russia.

Three former republics of the USSR—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—are now also members of NATO, a military alliance formed to corral and contain the nation to which they had belonged during the Cold War.

Lithuania, with 2 percent of Russia’s population, has just declared a partial blockade of goods moving across its territory to Kaliningrad, Russia’s enclave on the Baltic Sea.

To Putin’s protest, Vilnius has reminded Moscow that Lithuania is a member of NATO.

It is a dictum of geostrategic politics that a great power ought never cede to a lesser power the ability to draw it into a great war.

In 1914, the kaiser’s Germany gave its Austrian ally a “blank check” to punish Serbia for its role in the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne. Vienna cashed the kaiser’s check and attacked Serbia, and the Great War of 1914-1918 was on.

In March 1939, Neville Chamberlain issued a war guarantee to Poland. If Germany attacked Poland, Britain would fight on Poland’s side.

Fortified with this war guarantee from the British Empire, the Poles stonewalled Hitler, refusing to talk to Berlin over German claims to the city of Danzig, taken from her at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

On Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler attacked and Britain declared war, a war that lasted six years and mortally wounded the British Empire.

And Poland? At Yalta in 1945, Winston Churchill agreed that a Soviet-occupied Poland should remain in Stalin’s custody.

Putin is a Russian nationalist who regards the breakup of the USSR as the greatest calamity of the 20th century, but he is not alone responsible for the wretched relations between our countries.

We Americans have played a leading role in what is shaping up as a Second Cold War, more dangerous than the first.

Over the last quarter-century, after Russia dissolved the Warsaw Pact and let the USSR break apart into 15 nations, we pushed NATO, created to corral and contain Russia, into Central and Eastern Europe.

In 2008, neocons goaded Georgia into attacking South Ossetia, provoking Russian intervention and the rout of the Georgian army.

In 2014, neocons goaded Ukrainians into overthrowing the elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev. When they succeeded, Putin seized Crimea and Sevastopol, for centuries the home base of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

In 2022, Moscow asked the U.S. to pledge not to bring Ukraine into NATO. We refused. And Putin attacked. If Russians believe their country has been pushed against a wall by the West, can we blame them?

Americans appear dismissive of dark Russian warnings that rather than accept defeat in Ukraine, the humiliation of their nation, and their encirclement and isolation, they will resort to tactical nuclear weapons.

Is it really wisdom to dismiss these warnings as “saber-rattling”?

Patrick J. Buchanan

The Principles of Tyranny

Bea Jaspert Oct 11, 2019

Tyranny is a phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and — if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty — countered before it becomes entrenched.
— Jon Roland

There is a story by HG Wells called ‘the Country of the Blind’, in which a sighted man accidentally stumbles across a society of blind people. They treat him as sick because of his sight and (SPOILER HERE) the story ends with them putting his eyes out to make him ‘healthy’ like the rest of them.

In our sick society the people who see the truth through the rhetoric, who speak out against lies and injustice, who stand out from the herd, are the exceptions. Some of us might privately grumble, but most of us toe the line, don’t ask questions and look the other way, hoping those in charge know what they’re doing but in any case leaving the big decisions up to them.

Even when we feel uneasy about the ethics or morality of what is being done in our name we tend to suppress our reservations — we want a quiet life!
It’s dangerous to speak out. We’ve learned that challenging authority, or even standing out from the crowd, leads to punishment, bullying and ostracism.
Our families, our schooling and peers, our hierarchical workplace systems, all teach us to respect authority, to be obedient and to fit in, and those lessons are perpetually reinforced by the authorities, by propaganda and by the mainstream media.

A healthy society is one in which dissent can be voiced, questions raised and challenges made, freely and openly and without fear of retribution.
The right to stand up and speak out should be the cornerstone of every democracy, but increasingly, speaking out — against the curtailment or abuse of human and civil rights, against miscarriages of justice, and against the abuse of power — is largely left to grassroots activists, whistleblowers, investigative journalists and human rights lawyers.

Without such people there are few remaining checks and balances to restrain the powers that be who, after all, are fallible.
The more we silence dissenting voices, the more isolated we become and the narrower our perspective. Tunnel vision makes us paranoid and insecure. Resistant to sources of external influence and afraid of losing control, our institutions, our narratives, our media and our politics become increasingly oppressive.

This is the definition of tyranny.

We need people who refuse to be “blinded”, who take risks and bear punishments in our name, and are brave enough to stick their heads over the parapet to expose wrongdoing.

Outlawing dissent is the action of a repressive and sick regime.
It is the blind cutting out the eyes of the sighted.
And then who will be left to watch out for us?

Bea Jaspert

Source: Bea Jaspert

Turkey: Nerve center for ISIS fugitives, weapons, finance

In Turkey, convicted ISIS members roam free and their weapons easily cross borders. Even Turkish intelligence admits Turkey has become the nerve center of ISIS activity.

By Erman Çete February 28 2022

Turkey has become the nerve center of ISIS activity and weapons transfers

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Two reports have recently created an awkward situation for Turkey. The first one, an official report by Turkey’s Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK), revealed that the ISIS weapons supply chain is based in Mersin, a port city in southern Turkey on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

Three companies were allegedly involved, and a China-born Uyghur man provided materials for the operation of armed drone equipment sales and the production of chemical weapons. All three companies had operated on behalf of ISIS as procurement liaison for drone and IED equipment from 2015 to 2017.

Second, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced in a TV interview that Turkish intelligence (MİT) had captured Nuri Gökhan Bozkır in Ukraine. Bozkır is a suspect in the assassination of Necip Hablemitoğlu, a popular academic among Kemalist circles before he was killed on 18 December 2002, right after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) had assumed power.

Erdoğan also claims that Bozkır has links with the banned Gülen movement, commonly referred to by Turkish authorities as the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) named after its exiled leader, Muhammed Fethullah Gülen. Additionally, he is said to have supplied weapons and ammunition to ISIS.

Following the capture of Bozkır, further information has surfaced regarding his involvement in the arms trade. As a former Turkish army special forces member, he claimed that he had bought arms from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and transferred them to Syria from 2012 to 2015 on behalf of Turkey.

According to Bozkır himself, he had dispatched arms weapons to Syrian Turkmen, a total of 49 times, concealing them as boxes of food and vegetables.

Bozkır may be further implicated with the Turkish establishment than originally thought. In 2017, Turkey was looking for an engine for its domestic battle tank, ALTAY. Both the government and contractor company, TÜMOSAN had entered an agreement with Ukraine’s state-owned arms manufacturer, UkrOboronProm.

As it turned out, Bozkır was a partner in the Turkish representative for the company, Delta Defence Savunma LTD.

Court cases and ‘fugitive’ ISIS operators

Although his affiliations with Daesh are less documented, Bozkır was a suspect in a case regarding the discovery of improvised explosive device (IED) equipment in Akçakale, Şanlıurfa in 2015, and was wanted for supplying arms to ISIS and for being a member of the extremist group.

However, Bozkir wasn’t the only fugitive associated with ISIS in the country. The suspect in the deadliest terrorist attack in modern Turkey – the Ankara Train Station Massacre on 10 October 2015 was Mustafa Dokumacı, who nevertheless managed to flee the country.

His Azerbaijani wife, Ulkar Mammadova, told the police that when she and Dokumacı were trying to cross the border in 2014, they were assisted by Turkish soldiers. She claimed that her husband was later killed in a drone attack in 2020.

Following her confession, a court ruling released six women, including Mammadova and a few other wives of senior ISIS leaders. Mammadova was on the Turkish police ‘suicide bomber’ list.

Yet, according to one of the lawyers of the victims of the Ankara massacre, Senem Doganoglu, the acquittal of those women remains suspicious.

Doganoglu told The Cradle there were gaps in the women’s testimonies. “They simply informed on deceased ISIS militants or gave very general information about ISIS,” she explained. “I think they were acquitted in return for their silence.”

Right at the very top

It was also revealed last year that ISIS leader Jamal Abdel Rahman Alwi, accused of issuing the fatwa to burn alive two Turkish soldiers, was free and operating a bird shop in Gaziantep, Turkey. He was arrested only after the ensuing public uproar.

Last year, a senior figure, thought to be Turkey’s ISIS leader Abu Osama Al-Turki, was arrested in Syria and brought to Turkey by MİT, who had become aware of a plot to carry out a large-scale operation by illegally entering Turkey armed with explosives.

Another suspected ISIS member, Muhammed Cengiz Dayan, stood accused of being the leader of the Azeri-Turk division of the terror group. Despite denying accusations of his involvement in the Ankara massacre, he received a jail sentence of 10 years, 10 months and 37 days, but lawyer Eylem Sarıoğlu told the court that, despite all the evidence gathered, Dayan had been arrested and released twice before 2017.

Lawyer Senem Doganoglu said that one of the key witnesses in the case, Kuteybe Hammet, was acquitted for being a member of ISIS, after the court rejected the lawyer’s appeal for Hammet.

Furthermore, according to Doganoglu, it is questionable if this person even exists. “There are records [of Hammet] which go back to 1994, but whether he has left or entered Turkey is not clear,” Doganoglu said.

With several instances of ISIS members evading capture, is there collusion between ISIS and Turkey? Doganoglu seems to believe some courts have been trying to turn a blind eye.

“We can analyze active ISIS militants, who are put on trial or have been put on trial, from court cases,” she explained, adding that fugitive ISIS operators have not been seriously pursued by officials.

Keep the money flowing

In February 2021, the Turkish Gendarmerie announced that the head of the financial affairs of ISIS had been arrested.

An interesting coincidence occurred, however; this ISIS operator was caught in Mersin, which the MASAK report says is the center of the ISIS arms trade.

Mersin, according to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper, is the main station for ISIS militants going to Europe disguised as refugees.

Another ISIS operator, the former ‘finance minister’ of the organization, Sami Jasim [al-Juburi],  was captured by the Iraqi government, with the help of Turkish intelligence, MİT, according to Reuters. It was claimed Jubiri had been residing in northwestern Syria but was arrested in Turkey.

There have been other interesting accounts of ISIS trade activities in Turkey. Turkish citizen Ömer Yetek was released from prison in 2020. Yetek is the so-called ‘media minister’ of ISIS who recorded and later released gruesome footage of Turkish soldiers as they were burning.

Yetek then became an informant, but it has been revealed that one of his three companies, used while he was with ISIS, is still operating in Turkey.

In June 2021, a Turkish Presidential decree declared that Turkey had frozen the assets of a company under the name of Alfay. The company was founded in 2018 in Sakarya by two Iraqis and a Syrian. The three were blacklisted by the US Treasury as ‘ISIS financial facilitators’ in May 2021.

Although the US announced that the founder of the company, Idris al-Fay, was in Iraqi custody, it was unclear whether Turkish authorities acted against the other two, or how this company could operate from 2018 to 2021.

Doganoglu recalled that four companies – Saksouk, Al Haram, Al Rawi, and ACL – had been sanctioned and named by the MASAK report.

The Turkish intelligence had uncovered their transactions in 2019, according to the MASAK report. “They were used for FX [foreign exchange] transactions,” she said. “Moreover, the report documents that those front companies collected charity for families in Al Hol detention camp. Then we got an odd decree that froze ISIS-related companies that do not exist anymore.”

In 2019, the US Treasury designated two Turkish citizens and four companies as part of the ‘ISIS Financial, Procurement, and Recruitment Networks in the Middle East and South Asia.’

A Turkish presidential decree was issued two years later, in 2021, to freeze the company assets of those two Turkish citizens. However, one of their companies, the Tawasul company, had commenced dissolution in February 2020 and had ended the process by September 2020.

By the time Turkish authorities acted, the Tawasul company no longer existed.

Finally, last January, a Turkish court repealed an asset freeze verdict against a Turkish company, Al Alamia, due to “lack of reasonable cause.” Al Alamia was accused of financing ISIS operations from Reyhanli, Hatay.

According to Doganoglu, the MASAK report confirms that Turkey has become a hub for ISIS transactions.

“Now, the MASAK proves that the fugitive ISIS suspects in the Ankara massacre case used their real identities for financial operations,” she said. “So, how do they [the officials] not monitor them?”

Questions that refuse to be answered

In a parliamentary question, Mersin MP Alpay Antmen, member of the main opposition party CHP, wanted answers from the Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu in relation to the arms trade of ISIS.

In particular, Antmen wanted to know about an ongoing investigation into ISIS suspects.

“It seems that security forces had monitored those suspects for years,” he says.

According to Antmen, a critical question remains unanswered – how Turkish authorities allowed these ISIS suspects to operate a company on Turkish soil and how citizenship was given to one of them: the Aleppo-born ISIS suspect Hag Geneid, in 2017 – the very same Geneid who, in 2019, was mysteriously granted a ‘no prosecution’ decision by a Turkish public prosecutor.

Turkey’s complex and contradictory relationship with ISIS has received further unwanted attention, with two successive ISIS leaders now having been killed in Syria’s north-western Idlib province, where Turkey has long supported armed opposition groups.

As such, the country has been accused by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northern Kurdish-held areas of providing a safe haven for ISIS. This in turn may put a strain on an already uneasy NATO partnership.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

Author: Erman Çete

Source: The Cradle

Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist!


  • Piers Corbyn argues that Man-made Global Warming caused by CO2 is “nonsense”. Instead, he argues that “In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures,” and that it is the sun that drives climate.
  • He challenges whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global Warming scam Vs evidence-based science.
  • Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction long range (months and years ahead) forecasts. He has a First class degree in Physics from Imperial College and an MSc in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. He has published numerous peer-reviewed academic papers ranging from meteorology to cosmology and galaxy formation and has presented at many international conferences.

The mainstream media peddle the claim that 97% of (climate) scientists believe in man-made Global-Warming and that, therefore, there is no debate to be had on the subject. This is false and irrelevant. To get the 97% figure, they basically counted people who had mentioned Climate-Change in an abstract or heading of a scientific paper. Dr Legates has reviewed the work and shows that, in fact, only 0.3% of the papers claim that ‘man had caused most post-1950 warming’. Nonetheless, science isn’t about consensus, it is about facts; and no Global-Warming Inquisition is going to prevent me exposing their nonsensical theories. So here goes.

Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist and Director of

“…not only is the man-made Global Warming story false, the tax and control policies pursued because of it are hugely damaging for ordinary people.”

The CO2 “Climate-Emergency” story says that the trace gas CO2 (0.04% of air) is the main “control knob” of weather extremes and climate, and that Man’s CO2 – 4% of 0.04% of the atmosphere – is a major dangerous factor in this. Therefore, the story concludes, you must be taxed and controlled.

To put that in perspective, imagine if the whole atmosphere is represented by a rod the height of Big Ben’s tower (316 ft); the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) on top and Man’s contribution to that CO2 is between 1 & 2 mm – a pigeon dropping – on top. Look at the Big Ben picture and think about what climate alarmists are claiming!

For the CO2 narrative to be true REQUIRES:

  1. Man’s (4%) CO2 to control the rest of (96%) CO2.
  2. CO2 to be the main controller of temperature and climate.

BOTH CLAIMS FAIL AGAINST SCIENCE, and are not made any less false by any number of new or old celebs generating large carbon footprints by attending “Save-The-Planet” stunts where they tell us all to not fly, not eat meat, not drive cars, not breathe etc. Nor do the industrial scale official temperature data set “adjustments”, alarmist forecasts which never come true, or the hysterical propaganda claims of “record” heat at questionably selected urban heat islands, make falsity valid.

The first contention, the idea that Man’s CO2 controls the rest of natural CO2 – plant growth and decay, termite CO2/Methane production (which is significantly more in net supposed “greenhouse” effect than Man’s – and thus it is questionable as to why we have not declared war on termites), volcanoes etc etc. – is an absurd conspiracy theory of nature. There is no evidence for this madness. Do termites in the jungle increase CO2 production when you ride in a bus around your town, simply because your CO2 is human produced?

The second assertion, that CO2 controls climate is negated by observations. In the long run CO2 levels are an EFFECT NOT A CAUSE of changes in Climate / temperatures. Sea temperatures rule CO2 as the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the sea warms, CO2 is released (like warming a glass of fizzy drink) and if it cools it absorbs CO2 from the air. This happens on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis and on average CO2 in the whole atmosphere stays around for a few years before going back into the upper levels of the ocean or into the soil; CO2 levels in these relatively small changes LAG behind temperature changes. [REF.1,2,3,4,5]

On longer time scales extra CO2 emitted from the sea surface in warm periods gets swallowed up into the cold deep ocean by currents off e.g. Greenland and emerges 500-800 years later in the air over the Pacific etc. after a long deep sea trek (more info click here and see slides 43 & 44). So, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, over the long run, is an effect, and not a cause, of temperatures and lags behind the climate by about 500-800 years.

This is backed up by observable, scientific data. On the scale of decades over the last hundred or so years, and in spite of what climate alarmists claim, CO2 has been steadily rising while temperatures have oscillated – half the time moving with CO2 and half against – see above graph of USA temps (red+black) & CO2 (green). Over a longer period, ice-core data shows that CO2 levels, smoothed over centuries, FOLLOW world CLIMATE temperatures by about 500-800years. This is shown in the graph below (Note here time is Right to Left).

The current increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years are after effects of the medieval warm period. This took place around 500-800 years ago and was warmer than our current period, despite having fewer people burning fewer fossil fuels, by about one degree worldwide, or at least two degrees in parts of temperate zones. It was a period of economic boom for most of Europe where crops grew faster etc. But most importantly, it was the heating during that period which has been driving the rising CO2 in the atmosphere over the last hundred or so years.

This “tail-wagging dog” problem is known to Climate Scientists. Their response is something like “Yes but the extra CO2 that comes off AFTER temperatures go up then makes it extra warm.” This assumes what it’s trying to show – that CO2 has warming powers – and means there would have to be another peak or raising of temperatures AFTER the peak or top level in CO2. THAT IS NOT OBSERVED.

[Hockey stick graph REF.6]

The idea that CO2 has magic warming powers is based on Fake Physics!

The BBC and schools use a “back radiation” explanation of Global warming by a “CO2 blanket” – that is, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere forms a blanket preventing heat returning into space, thus keeping the Earth warm. An American double-glazing company apparently believed this nonsense and tried to make “better double glazing” by putting CO2 into the inter-glass space – yes, they went bust… [REF.7]

This is because it is contrary to basic physics? Objects in a “radiation enclosure” will actually balance out to the same temperature (reach equilibrium) independent of their colour (Physics is non-racist!). A white, grey or black ball will warm at different rates, yes, but they reach the same temperature (absorption=emissions) – and this is the same for regions of CO2 enriched air. Indeed, if their nonsensical theory was true, the CO2 would emit more heat than it would absorb, from which we could power a heat engine forever, thus breaking the first law of thermodynamics (as we get something for nothing). The second law of thermodynamics (a receiving object cannot get hotter than its source) is also broken, because the theory requires extra CO2 in the atmosphere to get extra warm compared with its source (the earth), which it sends back making the ground extra warm – like a ponzi scam investment scheme! In other words the “back-radiation” model of Greenhouse effect is delusional nonsense.

“…data shows that CO2 levels… FOLLOW world CLIMATE temperatures by about 500-800years.”

Better scientists know that the CO2 blanket / “back radiation” theory is bad physics and resort to another more valid explanation, which in the end also fails. The better approach is to examine the lapse rate – the fall in temperature as we go higher in the atmosphere, or the height above ground at which heat (radiation) escapes into space; the lapse rate actually has nothing to do with CO2 or any other so called “greenhouse” gas. Nonetheless, if there are more greenhouse gasses around – CO2 etc. – the height at which radiation can more easily escape, all things being equal, goes up. This slightly deeper (from radiation outgoing “top” to ground) atmosphere leads to the ground getting warmer (because you go further down from there to reach the ground). That all sounds Ok (even if a small effect)! However, this model also says that with more CO2 the upper atmosphere at a certain level will get warmer. Based on this, a hotspot above the equator was predicted as CO2 increased from 2000 to 2010. However the hotspot turned out to be a coldspot!

Why did the theory’s predictions fail? Because physicists were trying to over-simplify reality. The heat-exit height is not a static temperature but has day night fluctuations which get larger when there is more CO2 (and other “greenhouse” gasses) and this makes more cooling (further explained in box Fake Physics in More Detail) – thus giving us the observed cold spot (which, lapse-rated to the ground, makes a relative cooling which can negate the original expected surface warming). (see slides 53, 54, 55 here).

So, if sea temperatures rule CO2, what rules climate temperature?

The Sun rules the climate! Smoothed world temperatures are nothing to do with CO2 and follow solar activity. In the first graph above, the black dotted line is added to show the ~60yr solar-magnetic / Lunar cycle which we at show as the main likely cause of fluctuations in climate temperature over the last century. Likewise, previous Little Ice Ages all occurred when solar activity was low – e.g. the Maunder Minimum (~1645-1715) and Dalton Minimum (~1790-1830). Yes, the sun, that big ball of fire in the sky, is far more important for the climate than we are…

Indeed, the sun’s current activity suggests that another new Little-Ice Age is upon us. The recent low activity solar cycle 24 and expected low cycle 25 mean we are at the early part of another Little Ice Age. There are many sub-cycles especially involving the magnetic solar (“Hale”) cycle (~22yrs NOT the ~11yr cycle), and Timo Niroma showed that 10 Hale cycles give an approx (smoothed out) repeating pattern of solar activity and hence ~Temperatures. The last 10,000 years – the relatively warm ‘interglacial’ period since the last ice age – has had 10 sub peaks of warmth. The previous 9 have all been warmer than this one while they had LESS CO2. This peak, smoothed on scales of say ~60yrs, has ended – and the true peak was probably ~1930s/40s judged (eg) by the annual number of days 100F & 110F are exceeded in USA. The ~22yr and ~60yr fluctuations are smaller. This says one thing. We’re at the knee of the expected curve match with ~221 yrs ago. Another Dalton/Maunder level minimum is upon us.

Our current weather extremes match a developing Little-Ice Age. This year’s weather extremes and contrasts, which were well predicted in long range by, come from wild, on average south-shifted, jet stream swings. These are the wrong type of extremes for the CO2 story which must have a generally warmer world and so a North shifted, shorter, less wavy Jet stream. Occasional EXTREME hot blasts and extreme cold periods, as we have been experiencing, are a signature of Little-Ice-Age circulation: for example, some weeks of the hot ‘Belgian Wind’ 1666 parched London – the Thames froze many times in Winters around then.

The BBC, mainstream media, establishment and energy companies recognise this. They usually respond with dishonest exaggerations of heat using dodgy urban heat island data to pretend the world’s warming when it’s now cooling. Their data “adjustments” (fraud) which have likely “increased” recent temps by about 0.5 to 1C have been exposed by the late Christopher Booker, Tony Heller @SteveSGoddard, and The figure is a sample of their hype; also, see the box above Global Warmist, iconic hockey stick graph exposed a fraud.

Indeed, in 2004 I presented to the elite Global Oil Summit, Houston, Texas where I was well received by the various attendees (including Director of Iraqi oil, the US military, Putin’s chief economic and science policy advisor etc.). Afterwards the then (retiring) Chief Executive of a major oil giant came to me and showed similar graphs to what we had produced saying that they were ‘on the case’ and wanted my ‘independant corroboration’. Following this, we decided that we would approach oil companies for money (along with the UN so we could keep impartial), but the oil companies came straight back with, “We like Mr. Corbyn’s work but we will not be able to fund him because we don’t want to upset the Green Lobby.” From this event in 2004 the Oil companies accepted that Solar activity drives climate but decided to go with the CO2-driver fake science to make higher profits (from rising oil prices) and have stuck with that position and are happy to be portrayed as a false enemy of the (so-called) Green Lobby as long as it boosts profits. Their deal with governments is that (see their websites via my Presentation) they go along with anti-CO2 measures “as long as there is a uniform price for carbon across the board”. Hence the increased energy charges (subsidies) needed to make biofuels, wind farms etc “economic” mean a huge ongoing increase in their profits. Note on a world scale only 2% of energy is “sustainable”.

“Our current weather extremes match a developing little-ice age.”

However, not only is the man-made Global Warming story false, the tax and control policies pursued because of it are hugely damaging for ordinary people. It is these green policies which have been deindustrialising our country (which really just exports – not reduces – CO2 emissions abroad at the expense of jobs in Britain), increasing energy prices for the poorest, and causing mass power cuts in developing countries. The population of bats, birds and pollinating insects is endangered by wind farms, and EU regulations push for deadly flammable building insulation – as in Grenfell Tower. Millions die of fuel poverty related causes due to Climate policies every year. The largest victim group is African women suffering and dying from smoke inhalation due to open cooking fires because “sustainable” climate policies hold back coal-fired power station electrification of Africa (and thus hold back economic development) – effectively, UN-EU Climate policy is racist. I Could Go On.

It is for this reason that I, Piers Corbyn, challenge whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global warming scam Vs evidence-based science.


  • Join in #Action4Life! #CO2isGOOD4You! #RealGreenNotFakeGreen! Activity 20-26 Sept to counter the anti-science globalist plunder brainwashing protest / “Climate strike”.
  • The BBC must answer #Scientists4Truth challenge – Give evidence CO2 drives Climate.


  1. On short time scales of changes involving sea surface and land with air CO2 changes LAG temperature changes by ~10 months.
  2. See Mike Haseler (on Prof Murry Salby) [MH-MS] “Climate What we know and What we don’t”, Fig 12,  ISBN 1901546640 via St Matthew Publishing
  3. The large slow changes of CO2 involving deep sea cold water subduction lagging temperature by ~500-800yrs are imposed on shorter term changes smoothed over ~decades, involving land and sea surfaces.
  4. The ‘lifetime’ of CO2 in air is a few years. It must be a fraction of CO2 decay time (~9yrs) for CO2 containing C14 created by nuclear testing [MH-MS]. Prof Salby soundly shows IPCC (Bern Model) claims for longer lifetimes are false.
  5. The main sources of CO2 into the atmosphere are from Tropics NOT from the industrial Usa-Europe-China temperate belt [MH-MS showing SCIAMACHY satellite].
  6. Article further detailing the Hockey Stick case:
  7. April 7th 2016.

Piers Corbyn September 19, 2019

Astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction

Reading University Debating Society Climate ChangeClimatologyCO2Global WarmingGreenhousePhysicsPiers CorbynPublic debatesolarweatherWeatherAction  


Eat beef, save the planet

Ian Plimer

Prof. Ian Plimer book

Yet again, farmers are under attack. This time, it is the beef industry because, apparently, cattle burp and fart out methane and we’ll all fry-and-die because of the accelerated global warming produced by this methane. Is this fact or fiction? In my field of science, we often do mass balance calculations because material is added, exchanged, and lost during natural processes. Let’s do the same with the beef industry.

Grass grows by using carbon dioxide from the air as plant food. Why do climate activists want to reduce the amount of plant food in the atmosphere? Cattle eat grass, some grass remains as roots and stubble, and hence not all carbon atoms in grass end up in cattle. The carbon from grass is stored in meat, milk, intestines, bones, and skin and the amount of stored carbon increases with growth. Semi-solid waste materials from cattle fertilise grass for further recycling of carbon.

Humans are omnivores with teeth for cutting plants and animal flesh and then masticating to create a large surface area to assist digestion. We have the gut enzyme trypsin specifically for breaking down meat. Not all plant material can be broken down into nutrients which is why there is little nutritional value in us eating grass, stems, wood, or bark. Unlike cattle, humans cannot digest cellulose in grass. Bacterial and enzyme reactions in ruminant’s stomachs release the gas methane as burps and farts during digestion. This methane, a carbon-hydrogen compound, very quickly oxidises in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide and the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, water vapour.

For me, there is nothing like medium rare beef with a matching red-coloured fluid derived from releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by grape fermentation. The beef is digested in my body because of trypsin which breaks down meat into amino acids for circulation in my bloodstream. Meat fat ends up as brain food. Vegetarians and vegans ignore the benefits of human evolution and waste trypsin by not eating meat. In evolutionary terms, meat-eating has allowed the human brain to grow over time. In a past life when I took university student geological field trips, I noticed that the meat eaters were the first to the tops of mountains, vegetarians were struggling way behind and vegans were still trying to work out how to get out of the vehicle!

Some of the carbon in beef I eat is used and stored by my body, the rest is oxidised and exhaled. I breathe in air with 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide and exhale air with more than 4 per cent carbon dioxide. The gaseous waste product from cattle digestion is methane, and the gaseous waste product from human digestion is carbon dioxide. Some of the milk or cream I use in coffee and on morning porridge is stored in my flesh and bones as is the butter used in cooking.

When I’ve snapped my hobbles and decompose in a grave, most of my body carbon, including that from eating beef, will be released as methane and the rest will end up sequestered in soils. Blood and bone from cattle is used as a fertiliser and is sequestered in soil. Cattle skins are used to make leather which is sequestered into footwear and other leather goods. The whole process of going from grass to grave involves a carbon cycle and short-term sequestration of carbon atoms.

The number of carbon atoms returned to the atmosphere from beef farming is less than that removed by grass growth. Therefore, cattle farming and eating beef is a carbon sequestration process. If the popular mantra is used, we are saving the planet by eating beef.

If we do not eat meat, then grass decomposes anyway and releases methane into the atmosphere for oxidation to carbon dioxide and water vapour. If the grass is burned, carbon dioxide is returned to the atmosphere. The cycle of atmospheric carbon dioxide via meat production and digestion removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then later releases this carbon dioxide back to its source. What’s the problem? Whether grass is used to grow meat, decomposed, or burned, no new carbon atoms are created in this carbon cycle and, by growing beef, some carbon atoms are removed from the cycle for short-term sequestration.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that beef farming accelerates hypothetical global warming. Carbon atoms are just being recycled. We are being conned with a scare campaign by unelected climate activists who want to control every aspect of our lives, including the source of our animal protein.

If beef is replaced on the menu by insects, then I’ll pass. I will get all my nutrients from 47 pints of Guinness, 2 glasses of milk, and one of orange juice each day.

Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer’s latest book “Green Murder” could not have been written without 2GR wagyu and fermented fluids. 


Eat Meat To Save The Planet

…but not quite as much as you probably eat already

Originally published in The Sunday Times

At Monkton Wyld Court, a commune in Dorset, Simon Fairlie was eating a vegetarian lunch of soup with bread and butter – just like everybody else. Well, not everybody ate the bread, because that contained wheat. And the butter was not acceptable to vegans. But the point to emphasise is that nobody was eating meat when the Sunday Times paid a visit.

And that’s fine by Fairlie. But he did come to live among the eco-warriors and alternative-lifestylers at Monkton Wyld Court, a few months ago, to look after the livestock. And now he’s published a book that threatens to blow apart the green consensus that raising animals to eat them is a bad thing.

Mealtimes at the commune could be about to turn rather awkward.

But this doesn’t only affect beardie-wierdies. Fairlie’s book forensically dismantles a number of views that have entered the mainstream about the wastefulness and emissions associated with animal husbandry.

Only last October, the economist Lord Stern declared that, to save the planet, we must stop eating meat.

But Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, in London, says: “Meat, animals and dairy have been in the firing line for so long that in some circles the assumption is taken for granted that there is no case, ever, anywhere, to be made for the role of animals in farming, landcare or diet. Simon Fairlie offers a wonderful and challenging corrective.”

The environmentalist George Monbiot, has argued forcefully for a switch to vegan diets. He’s attacked more than once in Fairlie’s book. Despite this, the book persuaded Monbiot to rethink: “I was wrong about veganism,” he wrote recently. “Let them eat meat – but farm it properly.”

For changing his mind, Monbiot was at once attacked by former allies: “He clearly feels that it is ethically acceptable to kill some animals for food, even when his own life is not at risk,” sniffed the Vegan Society.

The director of the animal rights campaign group, Peta, said Monbiot had been “taken in” by “the latest attempt to justify meat-eating”. There are countless reasons why we should all go vegan, said Poorva Joshipura, Peta’s director, and not a single plausible one why we shouldn’t.

But what exactly is Fairlie saying? He’s certainly no fan of factory farms. Nor does he think we can carry on eating as much meat as we do. But he doesn’t think we should give it up.

Fairlie, 59, has an unfashionably gruff manner, dresses in old tweedy jacket with ragged cuffs, and appears to waste no more time than absolutely necessary on grooming. He describes himself as an “enthusiastic carnivore”, but doesn’t eat meat all the time. “That would take away the excitement of frying up the liver from the pig you have just slaughtered,” he says.

He has spent years writing about this subject – as an editor of The Ecologist and more recently in trenchant stories, heroically well researched, for the magazine he edits, The Land. He inherited robust prose from his father, the legendary political journalist Henry Fairlie (who coined the phrase, ‘the establishment’). And he knows a thing or two about livestock because he’s worked with animals since joining his first commune, after dropping out of Cambridge University.


For six years, he was a vegetarian. “But I was faced with its inconsistency when I started keeping goats. What was to be done with the male kids?” They wouldn’t produce milk or offspring, so Fairlie ate them and became a born-again carnivore (“the worst kind”).

Animals are often described as a “wasteful” way to eat: you could feed more people out of a field full of soya than a field with livestock. But the wastefulness derives from our unwillingness to use the whole beast. In The Goldrush, Charlie Chaplin boiled up his boots to eat them with knife and fork. Things haven’t got that bad in Nigeria yet, says Fairlie, but leather producers there are worried by the growing popularity of a delicacy made with boiled cow hides.

In the UK we are too dainty for such fare, and have even gone off soaps made with animal fat; as a result, rainforest is sacrificed for the production of palm oil.

Animals put on fat to keep warm, whereas plants contain oil to stop seeds drying out – thus animal fats are abundant in northern Europe and vegetable oils elsewhere. While others rush to embrace local food, British vegans – and vegetarians who won’t use lard or dripping – are heavily reliant on fats and protein from far away.

For about ten years, Fairlie lived in another commune that he chooses to call Happy Valley. It aspired towards self-sufficiency but spent about £200 a fortnight importing olive oil, sunflower oil, margarine, peanut butter, tahini, soya milk and yoghurt, nuts, chick peas, beans, lentils, molasses, dried fruit, rice, quinoa and more.

Meanwhile the grass and dairy operation on site – for which Fairlie was responsible – produced perhaps 350 kilos of meat, dripping and lard a year. “We were producing, from grass, a substantial proportion of the protein and fat that we required for our nutrition, but this was shunned. Instead we imported it from countries where people go hungry.”

read The Only Brit In The Strawberry Field ]

To research the book, Fairlie did not splodge around farms or trek across savannah. “The work consisted of a trawl through what academics pompously call ‘the literature’. The only time I get my hands dirty is when I try to sift out the bullshit.”

He’s contemptuous about statistics underpinning the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 2006 report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which suggested that farm animals generate 18 per cent of human-generated global warming gases – more than transport. Fairlie suspects the FAO bumped up the figure to win more publicity.

He demolishes a statistic banded about by Monbiot, Jonathan Porritt and others – to the effect that producing a kilo of beef requires 100,000 litres of water.

“Let’s apply this to Bramley, a steer I had the pleasure of rearing,” says Fairlie. “When he was slaughtered he provided over 125 kilos of meat. That means he consumed 12,500 tonnes of water in his 16-months life, or 25,000 litres on each day of his life. How he managed to achieve this feat I am at a loss to explain. Anyway, it’s not as though he locked all this water up in his little body so that nobody else could use it.”


Turning to the plight of the pig in the nanny state, Fairlie argues that pigs could become an asset in the fight against climate change, instead of a burden.

After the emergence of BSE, many people were revolted to discover that government allowed cows and sheep – which are herbivores – to be fed rendered meat and bone meal. Whereupon the government overreacted, Fairlie argues, by banning the practice and also forbidding farmers to feed animal waste to pigs. But pigs are omnivores: why shouldn’t they eat slaughterhouse waste?

In 2001 the foot and mouth outbreak was traced to a farm that had illegally fed pigs uncooked swill. Instead of cracking down to ensure swill was properly cooked, the government banned feeding swill to pigs altogether. Then the EU followed suit. Thus a 9,000-year-old recycling industry was regulated out of existence. Today, rainforest is felled to grow soya instead.

Keepers are forbidden to feed pigs even kitchen scraps – though this was encouraged during WW2 and generated vast amounts of extra food. If we fed waste food to pigs instead of burning or burying it, Britain could produce an additional 800,000 tonnes of pork each year – about a sixth of today’s entire annual meat consumption.

Animal rights groups say these problems can be avoided by shunning meat. Fairlie disagrees. “A vegan diet, laudable though it may be for the individual, is neither sensible nor attainable for society as a whole.”


Every agricultural system, he explains, produces surplus, waste and otherwise hard-to-use biomass that is best kept in the food chain by feeding to livestock. Meat or dairy produced in this fashion has little or no additional environmental impact. Fairlie calls this “default livestock”, and calculates that it could provide about a third of the animal protein currently enjoyed in “overdeveloped” countries.

Animals kept on small farms produce benefits – fertilising soil and managing predators and pests. Only with factory farming does muck cease to be an essential component of the farming cycle and become a waste-disposal problem.

But surely a move towards a more vegan diet in the UK would release grassland currently dedicated to sheep and cows for other uses – tree planting, biofuel production or wildlife?

“Yes, but the roles that animals play in a fossil-fuel free environment go beyond the mere provision of meat and milk. They are the best means we have of keeping wide areas clear and open to solar energy and wind energy. They harness biomass and recycle waste that would otherwise be a disposal problem. And they’re the main means we have of ensuring that the phosphate which leaks out from our land is brought back into the food chain.”

If we all turned vegan, how would we deal with wild boar digging up gardens, deer destroying trees, squirrels crawling over nut plantations, badgers rolling wheat fields, pigeons, slugs and carrot fly attacking vegetables? “Most vegans are currently protected from the ravages of pests through the discreet measures being taken by the rest of society. If animals are culled, why not eat them? Culling is either hunting, or else it is a waste of good food.”

The only alternative would be to cut off humans from the animal kingdom altogether, using impenetrable fences.


Fairlie’s dismissal of other people’s ideas is impressive. What does he propose instead?

His ideal would be for the entire country to be farmed organically, on small farms. He insists this could feed us perfectly well – we’d have to cut meat consumption by half, but dairy would remain about the same.

But it will never happen. “Not by outlawing chemical farming,” he agrees, “but simply reversing priorities – making organic farming the standard procedure and chemical farming the certifiable exception. At the moment organic farmers have to prove they are organic, at great expense, while chemical farmers can just get on the phone and order a drum of weedkiller.

“Penalizing good practice is a bizarre way to encourage it. We don’t make bicyclists and pedestrians prove that they don’t drive, and then award them a certificate – we make motorists buy a licence. If farmers had to apply for a licence to use chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and food in supermarkets was assumed to be organic unless it had a label saying it wasn’t, the tables would be turned.

“Without in any way restricting the public’s right to choose, organically produced food would become the norm again, and farmers would be keener to manage manure and nutrients efficiently – and achieve a balance between livestock and arable on their farms.”


Fairlie dismantles four myths

Livestock create more emissions than transport
The UN calculation that livestock generate 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than the entire transport infrastructure – contains basic mistakes, says Fairlie. It attributes all deforestation that culminates in cattle ranching in the Amazon to cattle; muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with ongoing pollution; and confuses gross and net production of nitrous oxide and methane.

Producing a kilo of beef costs 100,000 litres of water
Many greens thoughtlessly repeat this statistic. It’s nonsense, says Fairlie – it implies a daily intake of around 25,000 litres per cow. “There is no doubt some virtue in calculating the amount of rain that falls on a the land a beef cow occupies, but if the cow wasn’t there the grass would still grow, and rabbits or deer would graze it and consume the same theoretical amounts.”

Pigs should not be allowed to eat food waste
Governments that don’t understand animal husbandry have forbidden feeding kitchen or slaughterhouse waste to omnivorous pigs. As a result, European pigs are mostly fed GM soya from North America or non-GM soya from the Amazon. If the law was changed, and we fed all our food waste to pigs, Britain could enjoy another 800,000 tonnes of pork each year.

Meat production is inefficient
It’s widely believed that the global average conversion ratio of useful plant food to useful meat is 5 to 1 or as high as 10 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans could eat, that may be true. But animals also eat food we can’t eat, such as grass. “If you stopped feeding grain to animals (apart from surplus in good years), you would get less meat, but all this meat would constitute a net addition to human food supplies, while releasing enough grain to feed hungry people.” The real conversion figure, Fairlie believes, is 1.4 to 1.



%d bloggers like this: