The Cult of "Science" - Climate, COVID, and a Coup

Science has propelled human life to great new heights - and its bastardization is proving to be the downfall of western civilization

There was a time when science was all about discovering the truth of the world around us. It used to be that the scientific method was the golden rule and verifiable fact was always more important than scoring political points or achieving the results certain people want to see. Truth was truth and everything else was cast aside to the realm of fantasy.


Unfortunately that time is gone; while there are still thousands of real scientists around the globe that don't simply bend their knee to the highest bidder or bow to the "woke" mobs, their findings have been relegated to the fringe of public view, replaced by any findings (verifiable or not) that suit the modern political agenda of society's elite.


Though some scientific areas have remained relatively untouched by this phenomenon (such as the realms of physics, math, or computing, though even those are being encroached upon), others have been positively demolished in the name of modern "liberalism", bastardized beyond recognition not by new findings, but by the whims of what our current society (or more accurately, the loud and outspoken far-left fringe that has been thrust into the limelight) dictates.


In extreme cases that are becoming more and more commonplace, words have been given new meaning - biological sex is now a controversial topic, with gender being rebranded as a "spectrum" that can be changed to suit the will of any individual. Noting differences between the sexes is now taboo, to the point that pointing out the biological fact that men cannot simply become women because they feel like it and vice versa equates to "hate speech", a modern term used to police statements that don't fit the new "progressive" agenda.


Rather than opposing ideas based on merit or fact - the hallmark of a free and functioning society - modern "liberals" suppress opposition through intimidation tactics (including but not limited to spewing threats and vitriol online, publishing dissenter's personal information to the public, and attempting to get those who disagree with them fired from their jobs) and censorship courtesy of big tech oligopolies.


It has gotten to the point where psychologists who have correctly stated that gender dysphoria (ie. transgenderism) is a very real mental illness akin to other disorders such as anorexia, with a strong social component that indicates societal influence can actually cause people to develop the disorder, have been labelled as "transphobic" and attacked to the point of having their work completely disregarded and in some cases their jobs taken away from them.


No, scientists or anyone else for that matter aren't allowed to point out the real mental (and physical) harm these trends inflict on people, particularly children. We must not only accept it as a perfectly healthy way of life, but embrace it fully - even as children are being irreparably harmed by those that deem it healthy.


But the current "trans" delusion is hardly the only assault on science and logic - it is but the tip of the iceburg.

Climate science is one area that has had this issue for quite some time. It has long been politicized and has been brought to new extremes in the last few decades: fear-mongering predictions and flawed models have repeatedly been used to warn people of impending destruction if incredible action isn't swiftly taken (amazingly, the actions supposedly required almost always include a complete economic shift toward socialism, which has literally zero relation to climate).


Those apocalyptic predictions have repeatedly fallen hilariously flat as I've discussed in previous pieces - an interesting note about the "climate change" activists and the so-called scienctific papers published on the subject is that they heap the blame for every environmental problem they seek to address almost solely on humans, including temperature and weather. It's a laughable hypothesis that just like religion before it grandly overestimates the importance of the human race to the broader universe around us.


Claiming that humans contribute to climate change is one thing - no one is suggesting we have no effect, or that pollutants don't have a negative impact on the environment - but to claim that humans are the driving factor in today's changing climate is simply stupid and not backed up by facts or history.


Just recently near the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdowns in the western world many media outlets were covering how the sudden decrease in human activity and elimination of traffic was having a significant impact on the environment, some even calling for such a state to extend in order to "protect the environment".


With factories shut down and automobiles taken off the roads in much of the world, human-caused CO2 emissions were drastically reduced for several months, yet no discernable change in the rate of rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere was found - if human activity was truly the driving factor in the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus the driving force behind our current "warming" trajectory, as stated ad nauseum on every news program and "scientific" model you can find, you'd expect to see a significant decrease in the rise of CO2 levels found in the atmosphere during that time period.


But just like anything that contradicts the narrative, you won't find new studies questioning the logic of the failed models of the past - anything that fails to meet their desired goals is forgotten about and replaced with a new prediction using the same failing principles, the hypothesis never changing no matter what evidence is presented - in simple terms, it's the exact opposite of the scientific method.


A similarly stupid argument that has gained plenty of traction over the last few years is blaming climate change for natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and forest fires or that it's causing disasters that are far more "powerful" and severe than in the past.

Not only is this take incredibly ignorant of the past and the differences in data collection throughout our recorded history, but in the case of forest fires especially it is so easily attributable not to human-caused or climate change in general, but human stupidity and/or ignorance.


Forest fires are a natural process that have occurred for as long as there have been forests - in order to prevent this natural process from occurring, we know that steps must be taken. These steps include but are not limited to things such as clearing underbrush from the forest floors and controlled burns.


To see how those measures work, a simple test - do you remember hearing about how bad Texas wildfires have been on the news? How millions of acres of forest have burned down, coating cities in ash, killing and displacing countless animals, burning down thousands of homes?


Probably not, since it doesn't happen.


Despite having nearly twice as much forest land as California and similarly blistering (and even drier) summers, Texas doesn't see its state ravaged by uncontrollable wildfires every year like, say, California; why, you ask? Because they are smart enough to take the proper precautionary measures.


In the past few decades those measures have been significantly hampered in places like British Columbia, California, and Australia as climate activists and locals regularly complain about any controlled burns being performed thanks to the smoke they produce or the "loss of habitat" they may incur, not understanding that the small and very temporary inconveniences are vital in order to prevent the much larger inconvenience a raging and out of control wild fire brings with it (just ask Australia).


There's also the fact that most of these areas simply don't put the required resources into forest management, not understanding that the investment may seem to be throwing away money when it's working, but is in actuality saving much more in the long run.


One of the most ridiculous claims however, and one that is repeated ad nauseum by mainstream media outlets regarding climate "science" and many other controversial topics, is the idea of "scientific consensus".


Right away the claim is completely against the principles of the scientific method - a fundamental principle of science is that fact does not change based on how many people believe it or know it to be true. If every single person on Earth believes it to be flat, that does not make it so - opinions, no matter how widespread, do not provide proof.

One of my favourite quotes comes courtesy of a man that understood that concept like few others.


In response to a book refuting many of Albert Einstein's claims, which was titled "100 Authors against Einstein", the brilliant scientist quipped "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough".


How many scientists believe something has no bearing on whether they are correct or not, and indeed we'd still believe the Earth was the centre of the universe if this were true. It is an absurd talking point that tricks simple-minded people into believing something thanks to an intrinsic appeal to authority.


Not only does it have no place in debate, but it's also wildly inaccurate - the polls conducted on scientists regarding their thoughts on climate change have simply asked if they believe climate change exists, which is an argument made by no one, or if they believe humans play a significant role, not whether the driving force behind it is human activity, carbon dioxide emissions, or any other point of debate. It's as disingenuous an argument as it gets yet you'll regularly hear claims of "scientific consensus" regurgitated by simpletons on TV in place of intelligent discussion.


It's something that's regularly found when discussing any topic that inspires political debate, most recently with the coronavirus - if all the "public health officials" and scientists agree, then they must be correct!


Nevermind the thousands of scientists around the world that vehemently disagree on lockdowns, the (non) effectiveness of masking and social distancing, or the need for younger people to take potentially harmful vaccines...but then again, if projects like the Great Barrington Declaration that have thousands of signatures from scientists, epidemiologists, and medical practitioners from around the world are simply ignored by the media and censored from social media outlets, the consensus still stands right?


Speaking of the coronavirus, while the climate doomsayers continue on their crusade against our "impending doom", for the time being the liberal crowd has refocused their energies on their latest scam to impose their political will upon the population: the dreaded COVID-19.

COVID-19: The Dream of Tyrants and Elites


A topic I've covered in the past back when the hysteria was still setting in, we've recently passed the first year anniversary of "15 days to stop the spread".


Those who warned that sacrificing any freedom for a (false) sense of safety was a slippery slope that led to tyranny have been called conspiracy theorists and, ironically, fearmongers.


Yet time and time again, history repeats itself - people have allowed governments and so-called "public health experts" to dictate their lives to extents never seen before in modern democratic societies, their businesses crippled, their livelihoods ruined, their mental health in shambles, all in an effort to "stop" the so-called pandemic.


A year later, what has that left us?


We're worse off in every sense of the word, with no end to the violations to our fundamental rights and freedoms that were supposed to be violated "temporarily".


COVID-19 is still talked about daily as if it were a great plague despite its incredibly dismal fatality rate that is comparable to a bad flu season (what a shock!). Even with all of the safety theater we currently engage in (mandatory masking, social distancing, restrictions on visiting friends and family, etc.) COVID-19 hasn't been stopped from spreading anywhere.


Perhaps this is because, as studies have stated for the past several decades, masks don't stop the transmission of respiratory viruses nor does standing an arbitrary amount of feet away from everyone.


Instead of taking a look of the increasing number of studies (over 30 and counting) that have found little or no benefit of lockdowns when comparing countries/states with different or no restrictions and saying "well maybe our stupid idea of how to fight a virus was stupid", the so-called experts chosen to lead us simply doubled down.


When cases rise, it's the people's fault for not adhering to the guidelines strictly enough; when they fall, it must be because the guidelines are working, but don't let up or they'll rise again.


The failed models and projections from epidemiologists that were used to power this overwhelming response to the current pandemic is almost identical to the climate change alarmism that has swept up modern audiences, just on a more impactful scale.


The models for COVID-19 failed repeatedly and often by incredible margins, yet instead of having that discredit their bogus claims, they argue that the measures they imposed are the cause of the drastic discrepancy - even when countries without such measures managed to achieve the same numbers or better, or their own models claimed to take that into account.


Scientists have yet to explain why these measures have been applied to healthy people when study after study has failed to find asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread higher than...wait for it...0.7% of cases. As we've known for the past 100 years, people that are actively sick are the primary source of viral spread - not people that exhibit no symptoms, which is the entire premise of the term quarantine: isolate the sick so they don't infect the healthy. Instead, we've isolated everyone and wound up protecting...literally no one.


Places like California and New York have been praised by the media and Lord Fauci for their stringent lockdowns, nevermind the fact that places like New York and New Jersey actively killed thousands of elderly people with their policies of forcing COVID-positive patients to return to be cared for in said nursing homes, spreading it throughout the facilities like wildfire (and in the case of New York, then covering up the true extent of their deadly orders).


You certainly can't blame the public for outbreaks in nursing homes that have completely stopped visitations and left the elderly depressed and miserable as they live out their last days devoid of their loved ones' presence, yet still somehow nursing homes have been ravaged by outbreaks. The only explanation is that they're getting it from staff, but if trained individuals who have more stringent PPE measures in place than the general public are still spreading it, how on earth does a cloth diaper worn all day keep COVID at bay?


That certainly doesn't stop politicians and "health experts" from blaming "dissenters" for the spread though. And that's not even touching on the thousands of lives that could have been spared if "health experts" and many doctors had fulfilled their oath to "do no harm" rather than ignorantly putting COVID patients prematurely on ventilators (remember the ventilator "shortages" that the news was panicking about early on? that didn't age well) in what is tantamount to a death sentence.


Those that have imposed totalitarian restrictions on their populations have been lauded as heroes by the media even after their failures are made clear, from New York's Cuomo disaster to New Zealand's crippling lockdown state. Who can forget the gushing over the Czech Republic for their stringent mask protocols which led many media outlets to declare that the country "beat" COVID-19 last year? Perhaps they can revisit that claim considering they now have the highest death rate per capita in the world.


Meanwhile governors and officials who didn't panic and cause needless deaths have allowed their states to re-open and defy the lockdown approach that has proven to be far deadlier than the disease, such as Florida's Ron DeSantis, have been chastised by the media and other politicians, with claims that blood is on their hands and that they are killing their citizens for political points.


Ironically, those bastions of freedom amongst the growing totalitarian society we find ourselves in have continued to show lower death rates from COVID-19 and fewer cases amongst its populations despite following similar curves as the "righteous" states - and unlike the blue states, their economies and their citizens have sustained less damage in the process.

Masks, the so-called "best defense" against the virus as people have been arguing for the past year, has proven to be an absolute farce - yet once again, doubling down is quite literally the only answer the "experts" will provide.


The CDC recently issued a so-called "study" stating that not one mask, but two masks should be worn, leading the media and politicians to call for double masking and some people even arguing for three masks to be worn at all times. Because fuck breathing, that's why.


Of course this ignores the obvious question: if two masks are needed, how come this brilliant plan wasn't thought of from the start? Why did they only recommend one mask for the past year? Seems like they have blood on their hands if you ask me.


How about the famed "social distancing" that the "experts" have been reinforcing since the beginning of this power grab? Anyone who pointed out that six feet of distance between people is an entirely arbitrary number with no scientific data to support that it limits or stops the spread of respiratory viruses whatsoever, were labelled as conspiracy theorists and fools. Now the CDC and even the New York Times is admitting that the six feet rule is not based in science and never had any scientific backing. Huh, who'd have thought?


But wait, the real saving grace was to be the holy vaccines, delivered to us in record time from the virtuous pharma companies like Pfizer (which has paid out nearly $5 billion in penalties since 2000 for their upstanding work that has included illegal promotion of medical products, making false claims, various safety violations, and bribery), Astrazeneca (over $1 billion for similar violations since 2000), and Johnson & Johnson (over $4 billion for similar violations as well as price fixing) so that we can return to "normal".


These vaccines were developed and produced in record time - well within a single calendar year, despite the previous record being nearly five years - thanks to the fact the very trustworthy companies producing said vaccines were allowed to skip most of the safety trials normally required for such products.


Not only did they get to skip most of the safety procedures designed for, you know, making sure what people are being injected with is actually safe, but what many people don't know is that the vaccines on the market for COVID-19 are not typical vaccines.


In simple terms, a normal vaccine carries a dead or damaged pathogen such as a virus that your immune system can fully destroy, and in the process of doing so, create antibodies for. Those antibodies (which are remembered by your immune system so it can produce more should it encounter the virus again) become your body's defense against re-infection. When the virus is encountered again, your system should destroy it quickly thanks to said antibodies and you most likely won't even know you were ever exposed to the virus a second time.


Natural immunity can be obtained in much the same way, except instead of a dead or damaged virus, it comes from being exposed to the proper living virus which of course is more risky and (with a well-developed vaccine at least) far more inconvenient than getting a vaccine. This is why those that have been sick with a virus are immune from it (at least for a period of time) after they've recovered, barring an autoimmune disorder or extremely old age that renders the person unable to reproduce those antibodies.


Natural immunity can also be obtained by cross-immunity - some viruses may instill immune reactions that last years, decades, or even a lifetime, protecting you from getting sick from that virus in the future. In some cases however that protection shields you not only from that specific virus, but other similar viruses, which is called cross-immunity.


This immunity has been found to exist in people to protect them from COVID-19 - specifically those that have previously recovered from the (far more deadly) SARS virus which is from the same family as COVID-19. That cross-immunity was found in people that were infected with SARS way back in 2003, showing the potency of our natural immune system and how it can last for decades.


This cross-immunity has also been found in individuals who had not been previously infected by COVID or SARS and suggests some level of cross-immunity with other coronaviruses. This also demonstrates that an unknown portion of the population is already immune to COVID-19, which helps explain the extremely high numbers of asymptomatic cases.

Now with the COVID-19 vaccines however, rather than taking a dead or damaged virus and letting our immune system do its thing, the most common vaccines (from Pfizer and Moderna) being administered instead contain mRNA. These are essentially lab-created instructions for your body to create proteins, specifically a protein from the COVID-19 virus.


These instructions get your body to create a part of the virus itself so that your immune system can then find it and kill it.


The problem lies in the fact that this mRNA is created in a lab and is essentially the equivalent to genetically modified food - it may be very similar, but it's very unlikely the exact same thing. COVID-19, like HIV, has shown retrovirus-like activity, ie. that it can reverse transcribe to modify your DNA, just like HIV can - seeing such a capability and then thinking it's a great idea to produce proteins from said virus in your own body using genetically modified instructions doesn't sound like the brightest idea.


Perhaps it will work out well - after all, the companies selling them that ran their own trials of the vaccines say they work really well - but prior mRNA vaccine trials didn't always work out so well for the poor animals they were tested on.


In prior trials, the animals injected with such vaccines showed high levels of immunity to the specific virus they were vaccinated against, which was obviously very promising - however, when faced with unfamiliar variations of the viruses they were vaccinated against, many of those animals died outright.


Astrazeneca, whose vaccine one Bill Gates has heavily invested in, uses an adrenoviral delivery method rather than mRNA, which like the latest Johnson & Johnson vaccine, showed high levels of immunity in their studies. Though vaccines of its type have had much more testing over the years than mRNA, to date pharma companies have yet to produce a single adrenoviral vaccine that has demonstrated they can prevent disease in humans, with the only commercial vaccine of its type in use prior to COVID-19 being a rabies vaccine for wild animals.


Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, which according to them boasts a roughly 66% efficacy rate with only one dose required, is now being tested on infants despite the fact that children are virtually immune from COVID-19 and are not spreading it. Oh and by the way, this is the same company that knowingly sold baby powder with asbestos in it to the masses for decades and then covered it up. Seems really smart to let them near your baby to test out their great new product.


Since gaining the WHO's approval (the Gates-funded organization approved a Gates-funded vaccine? shocking!) the Astrazeneca vaccine has failed to produce the same results they bragged about outside of a lab, with studies showing a clear lack of efficacy and widespread side effects causing various countries to stop distribution of the vaccine entirely.


That isn't exactly promising, nor is the fact that pharmaceutical companies have gotten blanket protection from lawsuits should you experience side effects (or worse) from vaccines even if those effects aren't listed beforehand, with the only caveat being if you can prove they caused those effects intentionally. Good luck with that one.


Perhaps risking getting the "very deadly" virus is a better bet than getting unproven vaccines that have had no long-term effect studies or proven effectiveness from studies done outside of their own paid trials?


The vaccines, which were touted as the savior of the day and what would allow us to return to "normalcy", are now widely available in many places and despite having no long term safety analysis, sheep -I mean, people- are happily lining up to receive their shots - only to then be told by frauds like Lord Fauci that even after taking the vaccine, you still have to socially distance, wear your mask, and avoid people, making even the most ardent appeasers of authority question what the fuck is going on here.


People that have already recovered from the virus, and are thus protected from reinfection at a higher rate than even the "best" vaccine currently available, are being told by these same "experts" to take the vaccine anyway. It's as if everything we know about viruses and logic has been tossed out the window and replaced by only the dumbest ideas available.


The push for everyone to get vaccinated, regardless of if it is actually beneficial to them or is actually more likely to kill them than COVID given their age/health, continues to intensify and those that resist the pledge to become guinea pigs for big pharma's latest cash grab are being vilified by the media, politicans, and the useful idiots that follow them. Even members of the military who risk their lives to serve their country and protect its citizens are denigrated as "part of the problem" by Lord Fauci when they opt out of getting the questionable vaccines.


Despite his insistence on wearing masks even after being vaccinated, the afforementioned Lord Fauci touted the vaccine's efficacy by hailing Israel's 45% drop in positive tests over the prior month (which completely ignores the fact that the WHO finally revised their testing guidelines to reasonable thresholds, literally just days after Biden was inaugurated to coincide with a massive drop in worldwide cases) as a sign that their massive vaccine program is working...ignoring the fact that the US had a 70% drop in the same time frame, the UK (with far fewer vaccinations per capita than either) by 75%, and the worldwide average was dead even at 45%.


Once dismissed as another "conspiracy theory", vaccine passports are being discussed by governments around the world, and airlines and other means of travel are trying to implement their own requirements that would allow only vaccinated people to move freely.


Israel of all places has just passed a law that allows politicians to publish lists of the unvaccinated to shame them into taking the vaccines, a disgusting act that harkens back to the days of Nazi Germany when they experimented on Jews to develop and test pharmaceuticals.


The CDC in the US just issued travel guidelines requiring anyone above the age of two years old to have proof of a negative COVID test or having recovered from the virus recently to even be allowed to re-enter the US.


And for those that think this is going away anytime soon, think again; as many predicted, these vaccinations will need to be yearly, as confirmed by the CEO of Pfizer. And it doesn't stop there - Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson have all promised investors that they'll raise the prices of their vaccines in the near future to "capitalize on market conditions" despite the fact it was taxpayer money that funded their vaccine development.


As the media continues to consistently drum up fear with "new strains" (despite no evidence that any of these strains are more deadly), the COVID grift is nowhere near over - when pharma companies are raking in billions of dollars of easy profit, you can bet they aren't going to let that end without a long and arduous fight.


That also ties in to those who deny there's any "conspiracies" surrounding COVID-19, whether those theories revolve around the suspicious origins of the pandemic, the unscientific disaster of a response worldwide, the censorship and easily disproven disinformation being spread by supposedly "trusted" sources, or anything else - the retort is always something along the lines of "so you think that all the politicians and public health officials in the world are all involved in a conspiracy?"


Now ignoring the fact that, similar to the junk "scientific consensus" talking point, not all politicians and public health "experts" agreed or had the same response, but it's using a completely naive point of view.


For those that are quick to buy into "official" narratives and dismiss dissenting opinions, I advise they take some time to brush up on history, whether it be world history or the history of a nation of their choosing.


Conspiracies have constantly occurred throughout human history and continue to be uncovered every day, from minor local politics to the kind of disgusting and inhumane projects the likes of the CIA have conducted since before it was even called the CIA.


For such a thing to occur, it does not require all that many people to be "in" on it - specifically in regards to the COVID-19 situation, it is highly unlikely it was all orchestrated by one shadowy group with hundreds of members playing their parts like you might imagine in some sci-fi movie, but instead started as an information op (something very popular with intel agencies around the world) and was simply capitalized on by many bad actors because it presented an opportunity for themselves.


Politicans gained power and control they had only previously dreamt of in many western countries; mega corporations earned trillions and saw their competition decimated; pharmaceutical companies that already have a long history of corruption and unethical influence over the scientific sector and "health officials" raked in billions and set themselves up for record profits for years to come.


Did they need to be told what to do in order to capitalize on these opportunities? No, the opportunity presented itself and they took it, or simply followed in the footsteps of those that had. And like usual, it is the common people that are left footing the bill and feeling the consequences.


If you aren't highly suspicious of the entire situation, there's a simple question you should ask yourself - do you remember in the early stages of COVIDmania, when those videos of people falling over and dying in the middle of the streets in Wuhan were supposedly "leaked" from "whistleblowers" in China?


If so, ask yourself, how come nothing like that has happened anywhere else in the world despite COVID-19 being present throughout virtually every country around the globe? </