Israeli research showed us what we knew that COVID mRNA vaccine is damaging, subverting the immune response (limited production of antibodies to N-protein); South Africa? Portugal? Vax rate vs cases?
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE 1 or 2 MONTHS AGO BUT IS NOW TRUE.
The data is from the British/English government agency UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency).
Let's look at the (covid-19) death data for those over 80 years of age, both vaccinated, and un-vaccinated, from week 3, 2022 (the week of the great fraud) onwards:
The following table has 4 "columns".
Column 1 lists the period/week of 2022.
Column 2 is deaths among those vaccinated per 100,000
Column 3 is the deaths among the un-vaccinated per 100,000
Column 4 tells the number of deaths saved/lost (i.e, Column 3 minus Column 2) due to the vaccines per 100,000.
week03 39 309 => the vaccines save 270 deaths per 100,000
week04 57 322 => the vaccines save 265 deaths per 100,000
week05 78 326 => the vaccines save 248 deaths per 100,000
week06 103 324 => the vaccines save 221 deaths per 100,000
week07 114 280 => the vaccines save 165 deaths per 100,000
week08 120 243 => the vaccines save 124 deaths per 100,000
week09 120 190 => the vaccines save 70 deaths per 100,000
week10 110 152 => the vaccines save 42 deaths per 100,000
week11 101 141 => the vaccines save 40 deaths per 100,000
week12 90 134 => the vaccines save 44 deaths per 100,000
week13 84 122 => the vaccines save 37 deaths per 100,000
week14............. they suddenly decided to stop publishing the data.
I WONDER WHY?
So Column 4 is the number of deaths that are prevented for every 100,000 people who are vaccinated. If this number is negative then it records the number of deaths caused by the vaccines (per 100,000 vaccinated).
Graphing Column 4 we can see that as it approaches zero it levels off (from week 10 onwards). This is due to those presenting the data finding some fraud to keep the data positive, or simply making up the data. Anything, to keep the data from proving that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
I must emphasize that the above data only records deaths due to covid-19. It does not record any deaths due to adverse reactions to the vaccines.
Anyway, after manipulating the data for the weeks 10, 11, 12, and 13, the evil people decided that the data was henceforth always going to show that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving, so they stopped publishing the data. To provide an excuse for this they had to arrange for the UK Government to stop paying for covid-19 testing, so that is what they did. In the week 14 surveillance report they state:
"From 1 April 2022, the UK Government ended provision of free universal covid-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19. Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor covid-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published."
The relevant data from the reports can be found in the following PDF:
Previously, this very data was used to justify the vaccine mandates. The argument was that the vaccines were saving more than they were killing. This is no longer true. What is now true, is that; The vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Strategy against any company/organization that wishes to force a vaccine mandate.
Show them the above comment.
Tell them that the justification for the mandates was from exactly the data set (or one like it) as used in the comment.
Tell them that data has changed and that it no longer shows that the vaccines are saving more than they are killing.
As the vaccines have waned the same data set now shows the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Tell them that if they cannot provide current evidence that the vaccines are saving more than they are killing, then the mandates open them to charges of negligent homicide, etc. Charges that may bankrupt them.
Of course, they will not be able to provide the previous evidence as the data has changed.
Forcing vaccines without reasonable justification leaves them open to charges of gross negligence which could put the company/organization at risk.
I reckon we need to give them Medals of Honour - they are heroes - it is not an easy thing executing on this plan ... nobody wants this outcome ... but there is no alternative
The PR Team is doing a superb job convincing people who get wind that fossil fuels are finite that we can transition off of them to Magical Renewable Energy and EVs.
I see you have been following the MSM closely for updates on solar, wind Tesla etc...
As you will see I have been at this for many years... here's just a small portion of the research I have done on Magical Green Energy ....
I don't expect this will change your mind on Magical Green Energy -- mass psychosis overrides facts and logic... but let's take a shot at it ... even though it's like a one in 50 million chance...
Replacement of oil by alternative sources
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, there’s not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
Do you mind to calculate the area of land required for all these windmills. Keep in mind it needs to be near where the power is used and it needs to be windy.
Did you know that the problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent - so either you install the massive very expensive batteries (that last only so many years) and you drive the cost of electricity through the roof.....
Or you do as Germany has done -- when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow - you run a separate system powered by fossil fuels - so you pay for two systems
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning
Between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. This is more new coal coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The expected annual electricity production of these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined. Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer. At best you could call the recent developments in Germany’s electricity sector contradictory. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson? After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Just saw a Dept. Of Health and Human Services tv add with about 6-7 doctors in white coats saying how they trust the vax for kids. Just about made me wretch. “Safe and effective”. Who are these monsters?
Put them on scale together. SA looks bad until you notice the vertical axis.......... showing them on the same verticals acis, as you did with faux vaccination rates, speaks a lot louder........
Anecdotally it’s screwing with the overall immune systems of elementary kids. Several of the younger kids I know who were vaccinated within 6 months of recovering are getting every virus around, and getting really sick for 8-11 year olds. Flu A is going around a couple highly vaccinated private schools in my area right now - and it’s 80 degrees here.
My kids go to a conservative private school that stayed open and let the kids interact normally and has a very very low vaccination rate and nothing has been going around their much larger school in months, and even when stuff was in late winter, the last winter was really mild (so was the one before, but a lot of the larger community/ area was still hiding). Only a couple kids in the younger grades at my kids’ school actually got sick with flu this year, even though all the kids were exposed (which for 2nd-5th is pretty typical). At these other schools it’s taking half a class out a time of year people don’t get the flu here and it’s the 3rd and 4th waves of other viruses running rampant...... the difference is shocking, but heartbreaking too.
In Australia adds are running on YouTube and TV that one in three people will develop shingles throughout their life and that’s all. Oh, how interesting. At least they’re not banging on about monkey pox, not yet anyway.
As for the “vaccine” experiment. There has been 1, no efficacy, 2, negative efficacy 3, disease enhancement. Because experiment failed ages back and the experiment should have stopped, would I think this is deliberate?
We have those same shingles commercials here constantly. We only watch a few shows, like the Blacklist, but every show except Tucker Carlson in 50%-75% big pharma ads.
They are still trying to scare us with monkeypox, but it’s not working. It’s not stopping Biden from spending billions on useless crap, but then again he’s spending our money fighting Putin in a not very proxy war to the last dead Ukrainian while starving huge chunks of the planet with sanctions meant to hurt them far more than Putin. And babies in the US are starving because we don’t import formula and Biden shut down a major formula plant in February. But he’s stockpiling formula on the border for illegal aliens while US babies literally starve from the formula shortage he created.
Like a woke government gets recently installed in Australia because all we can talk about is the weather and feel good about being able to somehow control it. A few days after the election and it is announced on the news that electricity is going up shock, horror, 18%. Australia is or was a rich country largely to do with natural resources and cheap energy. A few years ago we had anti carbon tax Truck Convoy Protest at Canberra. Tour busses were also booked for transport to the protest over the prospects of higher diesel and electricity costs. Here we go again.
It’s not going to end until the woke urbanites feel the pain. In Australia, the US, Western Europe. Unfortunately that means everyone else will be feeling it too. But at least we can plan for it, and the most lasting pain on the backend of this insanity is in urban areas.
I find it infuriating that numerous companies make safe, smaller, far more secure nuclear plants - and can mass install them - yet the fake climate warriors reject clean, safe, affordable energy at every opportunity. Woke US stated are already warning of rolling blackouts all summer like some 3rd world country. CA has been doing them a few years. When they happen the urbanites scream about “rich people” “stealing” resources from the poor, then go cheer on the Davos crowd jetting around the globe on private planes. It is just so stupid.
From micro nuclear energy production generators that fit on the back of a truck and can run small villages 3-8 years to full scale plants that can run cities for decades from efficient plants on 15 acre lots, the solutions to clean affordable energy already exist.
I’ll buy the climate change nonsense once a single model predicting doom can replicate historical outcomes. None can. Even if one believes we are going to boil, inefficient wind mills and toxic solar panels that take enormous energy input on both sides of their useful life cycle, ain’t going to save us. Efficient fossil fuels are better for the environment and natural gas is much much much better. Nuclear is the cleanest, cheapest, and most efficient.
I read several years ago the globalist goal was to skyrocket western energy prices to create a “more equal” world. All their NGOs and social experiments halted progress in the developing world, so since they can’t manufacture a way to bring the developing world up to western standards while controlling the people, the plan switched to bring down the quality of life in the western world. They seem to be accomplishing it.
I’m somewhat tired of hearing the working and middle class in the US complain about it. Despite the tv talking heads mantra attempting to insinuate otherwise, actual data shows that a majority of homeowners and the upper middle class/ wealthy vote for Republicans/ Conservatives/ right leaning politicians, while the broke and renters vote left/ Democrats/ regressive “progressives”. If renters are tired of seeing their rent go up they need to stop blaming the rich and look in the mirror. Same for the poor. I have no sympathy for people who keep voting to destroy lives, including their own, because they are too lazy and gullible to notice rather obvious cause and effect.
The right wing in Australia is more “working class”. The left wing are more likely university trained “latte and Chardonnay elitists”. Money doesn't seem to play a role.
It’s somewhat the same here, the Democrats get slightly more of the college “educated” vote (I have a masters. Our university system is a joke. Anyone can buy whatever degree they want). That said, the “educated” vote for Democrats leans wet heavily towards woke broke folks in academia and decent income zero wealth techies in urban America. The doctors, accounts, finance people, business owners are still to the right along with the high school grads that are skilled trade. Increasingly Republicans are appealing to traditional left/ Democrats that are factory workers and working class as they very very very slowly realize the woke left literally hates them. Starving babies intentionally is a poor political strategy, but Democrats in the IS hate kids (which is why toddlers in NY are STILL in a useless mask).
Note, the differences in unvaccinated and recovered then vaccinated were not statistically significant. But differences between recovered then vaccinated and vaccinated then recovered were. I wrote a bit more about why I suspect this may be the case in my stack but I think it has to do with vaccinated providing a small benefit early on before going negative (these reinfections were mid-delta wave in Israel)
I am so glad that as a person who celebrated their 72nd birthday a few days ago that I never succumbed to getting injected with these so called vaccines. I have never been healthier and in the last two and a half years neither I or my partner have had even so much as a sniffle. What mystifies me is my partner who is 81 years old with 2 vaccines and a booster is enjoying the same health benefits as me. Neither one of us has been sick with anything The one thing I have done during this pandemicis to maker sure both of us are getting what I think is proactive and useful at this time. Both of us are and have been taking a regime of vitamin d with k and magnesium and vitamin b complex and c. Perhaps we are the true test case. I have never had one of the so called vaccines and my partner has had three. So far we are both still alive and are doing fine.
Is there an isolated, purified and sequenced SARS-CoV-2 virus that was taken from a person or persons ill with said disease? All vaccines are toxic to the human body and based on Germ Viral Theory which is based on junk science and superstition. These new experimental mRNA “ vaccines are even more toxic than any other so called “vaccines “ in human history. See thebigvirushoax dot(.) com and search online for free PDF titled The Poisoned Needle.
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE 1 or 2 MONTHS AGO BUT IS NOW TRUE.
The data is from the British/English government agency UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency).
Let's look at the (covid-19) death data for those over 80 years of age, both vaccinated, and un-vaccinated, from week 3, 2022 (the week of the great fraud) onwards:
The following table has 4 "columns".
Column 1 lists the period/week of 2022.
Column 2 is deaths among those vaccinated per 100,000
Column 3 is the deaths among the un-vaccinated per 100,000
Column 4 tells the number of deaths saved/lost (i.e, Column 3 minus Column 2) due to the vaccines per 100,000.
week03 39 309 => the vaccines save 270 deaths per 100,000
week04 57 322 => the vaccines save 265 deaths per 100,000
week05 78 326 => the vaccines save 248 deaths per 100,000
week06 103 324 => the vaccines save 221 deaths per 100,000
week07 114 280 => the vaccines save 165 deaths per 100,000
week08 120 243 => the vaccines save 124 deaths per 100,000
week09 120 190 => the vaccines save 70 deaths per 100,000
week10 110 152 => the vaccines save 42 deaths per 100,000
week11 101 141 => the vaccines save 40 deaths per 100,000
week12 90 134 => the vaccines save 44 deaths per 100,000
week13 84 122 => the vaccines save 37 deaths per 100,000
week14............. they suddenly decided to stop publishing the data.
I WONDER WHY?
So Column 4 is the number of deaths that are prevented for every 100,000 people who are vaccinated. If this number is negative then it records the number of deaths caused by the vaccines (per 100,000 vaccinated).
Graphing Column 4 we can see that as it approaches zero it levels off (from week 10 onwards). This is due to those presenting the data finding some fraud to keep the data positive, or simply making up the data. Anything, to keep the data from proving that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
I must emphasize that the above data only records deaths due to covid-19. It does not record any deaths due to adverse reactions to the vaccines.
Anyway, after manipulating the data for the weeks 10, 11, 12, and 13, the evil people decided that the data was henceforth always going to show that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving, so they stopped publishing the data. To provide an excuse for this they had to arrange for the UK Government to stop paying for covid-19 testing, so that is what they did. In the week 14 surveillance report they state:
"From 1 April 2022, the UK Government ended provision of free universal covid-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19. Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor covid-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published."
The relevant data from the reports can be found in the following PDF:
Previously, this very data was used to justify the vaccine mandates. The argument was that the vaccines were saving more than they were killing. This is no longer true. What is now true, is that; The vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Prosecute NOW.
It's time to lock them all up!!!
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fefa293e4-4420-457b-a5f8-c203fd055fa9_714x947.jpeg
lock them all up!
lock them all up! AND THIS IS HOW!
HERE IS A SIMPLE PROOF THAT COVID VACCINES
INCREASE SICKNESS AND DEATH FOR ALL AGE GROUPS.
EVEN THOSE OVER EIGHTY YEARS OLD.
IT USES EXACTLY THE SAME DATA ONCE
USED TO JUSTIFY THE VACCINE MANDATES
WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT !!!!????
Read about it here: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1184
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE 1 or 2 MONTHS AGO BUT IS NOW TRUE.
The data is from the British/English government agency UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency).
Let's look at the (covid-19) death data for those over 80 years of age, both vaccinated, and un-vaccinated, from week 3, 2022 (the week of the great fraud) onwards:
The following table has 4 "columns".
Column 1 lists the period/week of 2022.
Column 2 is deaths among those vaccinated per 100,000
Column 3 is the deaths among the un-vaccinated per 100,000
Column 4 tells the number of deaths saved/lost (i.e, Column 3 minus Column 2) due to the vaccines per 100,000.
week03 39 309 => the vaccines save 270 deaths per 100,000
week04 57 322 => the vaccines save 265 deaths per 100,000
week05 78 326 => the vaccines save 248 deaths per 100,000
week06 103 324 => the vaccines save 221 deaths per 100,000
week07 114 280 => the vaccines save 165 deaths per 100,000
week08 120 243 => the vaccines save 124 deaths per 100,000
week09 120 190 => the vaccines save 70 deaths per 100,000
week10 110 152 => the vaccines save 42 deaths per 100,000
week11 101 141 => the vaccines save 40 deaths per 100,000
week12 90 134 => the vaccines save 44 deaths per 100,000
week13 84 122 => the vaccines save 37 deaths per 100,000
week14............. they suddenly decided to stop publishing the data.
I WONDER WHY?
So Column 4 is the number of deaths that are prevented for every 100,000 people who are vaccinated. If this number is negative then it records the number of deaths caused by the vaccines (per 100,000 vaccinated).
Graphing Column 4 we can see that as it approaches zero it levels off (from week 10 onwards). This is due to those presenting the data finding some fraud to keep the data positive, or simply making up the data. Anything, to keep the data from proving that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Image/Graph http://www.preearth.net/images/deaths-caused-saved-by-vaccines.png
I must emphasize that the above data only records deaths due to covid-19. It does not record any deaths due to adverse reactions to the vaccines.
Anyway, after manipulating the data for the weeks 10, 11, 12, and 13, the evil people decided that the data was henceforth always going to show that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving, so they stopped publishing the data. To provide an excuse for this they had to arrange for the UK Government to stop paying for covid-19 testing, so that is what they did. In the week 14 surveillance report they state:
"From 1 April 2022, the UK Government ended provision of free universal covid-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19. Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor covid-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published."
The relevant data from the reports can be found in the following PDF:
http://www.preearth.net/pdfs/the-vaccines-are-killing-you.pdf
Previously, this very data was used to justify the vaccine mandates. The argument was that the vaccines were saving more than they were killing. This is no longer true. What is now true, is that; The vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Try it and see
STRATEGY AGAINST MANDATES
Strategy against any company/organization that wishes to force a vaccine mandate.
Show them the above comment.
Tell them that the justification for the mandates was from exactly the data set (or one like it) as used in the comment.
Tell them that data has changed and that it no longer shows that the vaccines are saving more than they are killing.
As the vaccines have waned the same data set now shows the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Tell them that if they cannot provide current evidence that the vaccines are saving more than they are killing, then the mandates open them to charges of negligent homicide, etc. Charges that may bankrupt them.
Of course, they will not be able to provide the previous evidence as the data has changed.
Forcing vaccines without reasonable justification leaves them open to charges of gross negligence which could put the company/organization at risk.
I reckon we need to give them Medals of Honour - they are heroes - it is not an easy thing executing on this plan ... nobody wants this outcome ... but there is no alternative
https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=220
I don't expect a deluge of red hearts for this ... nobody wants the truth... they can't handle the truth
What do you do when you are burning far more oil than you discover?
You develop GREEN energy, electric cars, etc.
Excellent response!
The PR Team is doing a superb job convincing people who get wind that fossil fuels are finite that we can transition off of them to Magical Renewable Energy and EVs.
I see you have been following the MSM closely for updates on solar, wind Tesla etc...
As you will see I have been at this for many years... here's just a small portion of the research I have done on Magical Green Energy ....
I don't expect this will change your mind on Magical Green Energy -- mass psychosis overrides facts and logic... but let's take a shot at it ... even though it's like a one in 50 million chance...
Replacement of oil by alternative sources
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, there’s not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable Penetration https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/iea-primary-energy-suppy-1973-and-2015.png
Renewable Energy’s $2.5 Trillion Problem https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/23/google-gives-up-on-green-tech-investment-initiative-rec/
Let me end with a quotation - not sure who said this but I like it - a lot:
A fool when proved wrong gets angry.
A thinker when proved wrong thanks the person for showing them their folly.
It's called learning.
"32,850 wind turbines, developed each year for 50 years"
That by itself is achievable (for one Cubic mile of oil).
In combo with solar panel farms (in particular in such places as Australia) this would be easily achievable.
The EIGHTY meters of sea-level raise (that will eventually happen with warming and both ice-caps melting) makes doing nothing very very expensive.
http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23
Do you mind to calculate the area of land required for all these windmills. Keep in mind it needs to be near where the power is used and it needs to be windy.
Did you know that the problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent - so either you install the massive very expensive batteries (that last only so many years) and you drive the cost of electricity through the roof.....
Or you do as Germany has done -- when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow - you run a separate system powered by fossil fuels - so you pay for two systems
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to store energy
Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning
Between 2011 and 2015 Germany will open 10.7 GW of new coal fired power stations. This is more new coal coal capacity than was constructed in the entire two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The expected annual electricity production of these power stations will far exceed that of existing solar panels and will be approximately the same as that of Germany’s existing solar panels and wind turbines combined. Solar panels and wind turbines however have expected life spans of no more than 25 years. Coal power plants typically last 50 years or longer. At best you could call the recent developments in Germany’s electricity sector contradictory. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-germanys-nuclear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/
Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson? After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Just saw a Dept. Of Health and Human Services tv add with about 6-7 doctors in white coats saying how they trust the vax for kids. Just about made me wretch. “Safe and effective”. Who are these monsters?
Put them on scale together. SA looks bad until you notice the vertical axis.......... showing them on the same verticals acis, as you did with faux vaccination rates, speaks a lot louder........
Anecdotally it’s screwing with the overall immune systems of elementary kids. Several of the younger kids I know who were vaccinated within 6 months of recovering are getting every virus around, and getting really sick for 8-11 year olds. Flu A is going around a couple highly vaccinated private schools in my area right now - and it’s 80 degrees here.
My kids go to a conservative private school that stayed open and let the kids interact normally and has a very very low vaccination rate and nothing has been going around their much larger school in months, and even when stuff was in late winter, the last winter was really mild (so was the one before, but a lot of the larger community/ area was still hiding). Only a couple kids in the younger grades at my kids’ school actually got sick with flu this year, even though all the kids were exposed (which for 2nd-5th is pretty typical). At these other schools it’s taking half a class out a time of year people don’t get the flu here and it’s the 3rd and 4th waves of other viruses running rampant...... the difference is shocking, but heartbreaking too.
In Australia adds are running on YouTube and TV that one in three people will develop shingles throughout their life and that’s all. Oh, how interesting. At least they’re not banging on about monkey pox, not yet anyway.
As for the “vaccine” experiment. There has been 1, no efficacy, 2, negative efficacy 3, disease enhancement. Because experiment failed ages back and the experiment should have stopped, would I think this is deliberate?
We have those same shingles commercials here constantly. We only watch a few shows, like the Blacklist, but every show except Tucker Carlson in 50%-75% big pharma ads.
They are still trying to scare us with monkeypox, but it’s not working. It’s not stopping Biden from spending billions on useless crap, but then again he’s spending our money fighting Putin in a not very proxy war to the last dead Ukrainian while starving huge chunks of the planet with sanctions meant to hurt them far more than Putin. And babies in the US are starving because we don’t import formula and Biden shut down a major formula plant in February. But he’s stockpiling formula on the border for illegal aliens while US babies literally starve from the formula shortage he created.
No one is this incompetent. It’s by design.
Like a woke government gets recently installed in Australia because all we can talk about is the weather and feel good about being able to somehow control it. A few days after the election and it is announced on the news that electricity is going up shock, horror, 18%. Australia is or was a rich country largely to do with natural resources and cheap energy. A few years ago we had anti carbon tax Truck Convoy Protest at Canberra. Tour busses were also booked for transport to the protest over the prospects of higher diesel and electricity costs. Here we go again.
It’s not going to end until the woke urbanites feel the pain. In Australia, the US, Western Europe. Unfortunately that means everyone else will be feeling it too. But at least we can plan for it, and the most lasting pain on the backend of this insanity is in urban areas.
I find it infuriating that numerous companies make safe, smaller, far more secure nuclear plants - and can mass install them - yet the fake climate warriors reject clean, safe, affordable energy at every opportunity. Woke US stated are already warning of rolling blackouts all summer like some 3rd world country. CA has been doing them a few years. When they happen the urbanites scream about “rich people” “stealing” resources from the poor, then go cheer on the Davos crowd jetting around the globe on private planes. It is just so stupid.
From micro nuclear energy production generators that fit on the back of a truck and can run small villages 3-8 years to full scale plants that can run cities for decades from efficient plants on 15 acre lots, the solutions to clean affordable energy already exist.
I’ll buy the climate change nonsense once a single model predicting doom can replicate historical outcomes. None can. Even if one believes we are going to boil, inefficient wind mills and toxic solar panels that take enormous energy input on both sides of their useful life cycle, ain’t going to save us. Efficient fossil fuels are better for the environment and natural gas is much much much better. Nuclear is the cleanest, cheapest, and most efficient.
I read several years ago the globalist goal was to skyrocket western energy prices to create a “more equal” world. All their NGOs and social experiments halted progress in the developing world, so since they can’t manufacture a way to bring the developing world up to western standards while controlling the people, the plan switched to bring down the quality of life in the western world. They seem to be accomplishing it.
I’m somewhat tired of hearing the working and middle class in the US complain about it. Despite the tv talking heads mantra attempting to insinuate otherwise, actual data shows that a majority of homeowners and the upper middle class/ wealthy vote for Republicans/ Conservatives/ right leaning politicians, while the broke and renters vote left/ Democrats/ regressive “progressives”. If renters are tired of seeing their rent go up they need to stop blaming the rich and look in the mirror. Same for the poor. I have no sympathy for people who keep voting to destroy lives, including their own, because they are too lazy and gullible to notice rather obvious cause and effect.
The right wing in Australia is more “working class”. The left wing are more likely university trained “latte and Chardonnay elitists”. Money doesn't seem to play a role.
It’s somewhat the same here, the Democrats get slightly more of the college “educated” vote (I have a masters. Our university system is a joke. Anyone can buy whatever degree they want). That said, the “educated” vote for Democrats leans wet heavily towards woke broke folks in academia and decent income zero wealth techies in urban America. The doctors, accounts, finance people, business owners are still to the right along with the high school grads that are skilled trade. Increasingly Republicans are appealing to traditional left/ Democrats that are factory workers and working class as they very very very slowly realize the woke left literally hates them. Starving babies intentionally is a poor political strategy, but Democrats in the IS hate kids (which is why toddlers in NY are STILL in a useless mask).
Not surprising if we turn out to be right on this one too.
This graph suggests it is as well:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4f0b6173-3f28-434e-adc6-171de646f9cf_907x464.png
Note, the differences in unvaccinated and recovered then vaccinated were not statistically significant. But differences between recovered then vaccinated and vaccinated then recovered were. I wrote a bit more about why I suspect this may be the case in my stack but I think it has to do with vaccinated providing a small benefit early on before going negative (these reinfections were mid-delta wave in Israel)
very nice brilliant work indeed.
I am so glad that as a person who celebrated their 72nd birthday a few days ago that I never succumbed to getting injected with these so called vaccines. I have never been healthier and in the last two and a half years neither I or my partner have had even so much as a sniffle. What mystifies me is my partner who is 81 years old with 2 vaccines and a booster is enjoying the same health benefits as me. Neither one of us has been sick with anything The one thing I have done during this pandemicis to maker sure both of us are getting what I think is proactive and useful at this time. Both of us are and have been taking a regime of vitamin d with k and magnesium and vitamin b complex and c. Perhaps we are the true test case. I have never had one of the so called vaccines and my partner has had three. So far we are both still alive and are doing fine.
Is there an isolated, purified and sequenced SARS-CoV-2 virus that was taken from a person or persons ill with said disease? All vaccines are toxic to the human body and based on Germ Viral Theory which is based on junk science and superstition. These new experimental mRNA “ vaccines are even more toxic than any other so called “vaccines “ in human history. See thebigvirushoax dot(.) com and search online for free PDF titled The Poisoned Needle.
HERE IS A SIMPLE PROOF THAT COVID VACCINES
INCREASE SICKNESS AND DEATH FOR ALL AGE GROUPS.
EVEN THOSE OVER EIGHTY YEARS OLD.
IT USES EXACTLY THE SAME DATA ONCE
USED TO JUSTIFY THE VACCINE MANDATES
WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT !!!!????
Read about it here: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1184
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE 1 or 2 MONTHS AGO BUT IS NOW TRUE.
The data is from the British/English government agency UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency).
Let's look at the (covid-19) death data for those over 80 years of age, both vaccinated, and un-vaccinated, from week 3, 2022 (the week of the great fraud) onwards:
The following table has 4 "columns".
Column 1 lists the period/week of 2022.
Column 2 is deaths among those vaccinated per 100,000
Column 3 is the deaths among the un-vaccinated per 100,000
Column 4 tells the number of deaths saved/lost (i.e, Column 3 minus Column 2) due to the vaccines per 100,000.
week03 39 309 => the vaccines save 270 deaths per 100,000
week04 57 322 => the vaccines save 265 deaths per 100,000
week05 78 326 => the vaccines save 248 deaths per 100,000
week06 103 324 => the vaccines save 221 deaths per 100,000
week07 114 280 => the vaccines save 165 deaths per 100,000
week08 120 243 => the vaccines save 124 deaths per 100,000
week09 120 190 => the vaccines save 70 deaths per 100,000
week10 110 152 => the vaccines save 42 deaths per 100,000
week11 101 141 => the vaccines save 40 deaths per 100,000
week12 90 134 => the vaccines save 44 deaths per 100,000
week13 84 122 => the vaccines save 37 deaths per 100,000
week14............. they suddenly decided to stop publishing the data.
I WONDER WHY?
So Column 4 is the number of deaths that are prevented for every 100,000 people who are vaccinated. If this number is negative then it records the number of deaths caused by the vaccines (per 100,000 vaccinated).
Graphing Column 4 we can see that as it approaches zero it levels off (from week 10 onwards). This is due to those presenting the data finding some fraud to keep the data positive, or simply making up the data. Anything, to keep the data from proving that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving.
Image/Graph http://www.preearth.net/images/deaths-caused-saved-by-vaccines.png
I must emphasize that the above data only records deaths due to covid-19. It does not record any deaths due to adverse reactions to the vaccines.
Anyway, after manipulating the data for the weeks 10, 11, 12, and 13, the evil people decided that the data was henceforth always going to show that the vaccines are killing more than they are saving, so they stopped publishing the data. To provide an excuse for this they had to arrange for the UK Government to stop paying for covid-19 testing, so that is what they did. In the week 14 surveillance report they state:
"From 1 April 2022, the UK Government ended provision of free universal covid-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19. Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor covid-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published."
The relevant data from the reports can be found in the following PDF:
http://www.preearth.net/pdfs/the-vaccines-are-killing-you.pdf
Previously, this very data was used to justify the vaccine mandates. The argument was that the vaccines were saving more than they were killing. This is no longer true. What is now true, is that; The vaccines are killing more than they are saving.