11 Comments

The truth, in relation to healthcare and other matters, is coming out everywhere. The 'globalists' (for want of a better term) can generally rely upon the media simply not to report it.

Your article illustrates clearly another layer of the overall strategy: truths which ARE reported can be ignored provided they gain no traction. But if they do, then they must be retracted.

Thank you for your research and analysis.

Expand full comment

'Excess Deaths' in the UK compared to pre-2020 stands at PLUS 8%.

+1% would cause concern. +2% would be extremely worrying and require a Public Enquiry!

8% is OFF THE SCALE but, because we all know why this number is so massive, the authorities hide the facts to allow the expensive deadly injections to continue to be marketed so the profits can be shared!

Plus 8% in Excess Deaths = No action!

If Pfizer et al, accepted LIABILITY Excess Deaths would slowly level off. I say 'slowly' because the damage has already been injected into unsuspecting vax recipients, who believed the lies and propaganda. Be warned the next Scamdemic is being prepared by the CORRUPT but defunct World Health Organisation who seem to favour MonkeyPox (MoneyPox) over Bird Flu. Both of which have been made more dangerous in laboratories using Gain of Function (DoD Bioweapon) technology.

You have been warned - NO MORE mRNA VACCINES, they are dangerous and can kill!

Unjabbed Mick. I'll live longer without corrupt medical intervention.

Expand full comment

If it is not congruent with the $cience Narrative echo chamber, it must be silenced!

Expand full comment

This information comes to this reader at zero shock factor. If the official narrative is that the sky is purple and clouds are green, no amount of legitimate data and physical evidence to the contrary will be allowed. Lying, obfuscating, and manufacturing reality is the new truth. My condolences to all the hard work you and others have done to bring the real truth into the light.

Expand full comment

It’s a shame so many peer reviewed papers have been subject to censorship.

Expand full comment

that girl might win a beauty contest, but someone with a degree in climate change does not impress too much. After seeing a real researcher, Dr Willie Soon, astrofysicist, explain where climateers are wrong, and this girl should watch his presentation, no one can convince me that there is something like climate change- or rather, climate changes continuously but not by me driving my car to town.

Lots of fake studies have been retracted recently, but now they are starting to withdraw the good ones. So much for science.

Expand full comment

The Daily Beagle has produced a number of rebuttals to so-called 'climate change', which includes...

...references to historic evidence...

https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/using-scientific-evidence-to-refute

...evidence of criminal arrests of arsonists starting forest fires in multiple countries...

https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/not-climate-change-it-is-arson

...a review on the origins and tactics of 'global warming'...

https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/why-global-warming-is-scam

...and compiled extensive evidence - from the horse's mouth - of various governments conducting experiments into manipulating the weather.

https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/weather-warfare

Expand full comment

Nothing says SCAM like [purposely] hiding the truth.

Expand full comment

Do the journals return the fees they charged the authors when they retract a paper that has passed their peer review process?

Expand full comment

Not to my knowledge. The fee is charged as part of the submission process.

Expand full comment

Springer Nature has a history of 175 years, but

all of its management is business scholars and accountants, all in the business of making money.

They once had to retract a paper by a Taiwanese author due to insults from the Chinese Communist Party (= they are also politically active).

Springer Nature's financial relationships are unclear and there is something fishy about them.

Incidentally, the editors of "BMC Infectious Diseases" are mostly tropical medicine and public health doctors (all of whom are stupid), and it is likely that they receive money and sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies, but this is also not disclosed at all.

There is no statistical expert like Steeve Kirsch to be found.

The papers published are a mixed bag.

Cureus is also under the umbrella of Springer Nature.

Expand full comment