A Short Preview (Login to Access the Full Interview):

Theme: Don’t Believe the Backpedaling

Interview: 2022 Annual Wrap Up: Pharma Food with Elze van Hamelen

Take Action

Please login to see stories, charts, and subscriber-only content.
Not a subscriber yet? You are invited to join here!


168 Comments

  1. Catherine – You were thinking there was something else you wanted to mention in the “Ask Catherine” commentary. Was it about the legitimacy of chemtrails, that Arthur Firstenburg recently questioned? Maybe you can include your comments next week. Definitely interested in knowing your thoughts!

      1. Yes, that Firstenberg piece on chemtrails was quite surprising. I have not yet read his book, Invisible Rainbow, linking surges of ill health with each successive wave of electrification infrastructure. I’ve heard it is good, but Firstenberg’s diatribe did not impress me, it did include some evidence but it was more the tone that bothered me: not professional, not the way a scientist should present an argument, even in the vernacular for public consumption…so I left feeling a bit suspicious of his motives.

        I remain mystified that this mother of all conspiracies in plain sight still has not received the kind of traction that even in this censoring/denying environment I would have expected. Compared to emfs, for example. Why isn’t there more science and independent investigation on chemtrails/contrails, and why hasn’t there been a notable federal level politician taking this on, as there even has been for something as profit-threatening as emfs, at least somewhere in the world? Maybe I’ve just missed it…but I suspect not.

        1. Oh and another thing…Catherine, perhaps you have already assembled this, but I still have not seen a well organized, comprehensive argument against the anthropogenic climate change narrative.

          Yes I’ve seen presentations that attack the narrative, they show segments of charts demonstrating that CO2 concentrations lag not lead increasing global temperature, and other quite dense presentations arguing that climate models leave out xyz: solar cycles, cloud dynamics, grand solar minima, space weather etc.

          BUT they do not take the trouble to meticulously link to sites and data that present the official narrative. Which means that open minded listeners have to find that information ourselves and see if the critics are correctly reporting the official narrative. This is just basic due diligence for a listener to perform, but even I have found that too daunting a prospect. Where do I go, to NASA, to the IPCC, which papers do I look at, how as the narrative changed over time, have they adjusted their models in response to criticism, have the critics responded to those adjustments and so on.

          It would be like Andrew Kaufman never having led his listeners through a critical examination of virology papers. You can’t just present your arguments and assume that your listeners are fully aware of the official narrative and the exact, specific, evidence they present to support it.

          Again, mystified that someone has not taken the time to pull that together. Have I missed that too?

          1. Haha!
            They debunk themselves.
            46 STATEMENTS by IPCC Experts against the IPCChttps://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/climate-ecology/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/

          2. Hi Sandra, thanks for these links. I spent about 90 min looking through Corbett’s material and did not find one single reference with a link to a scientific paper or an IPCC document. I searched his site for “climate change”. It appear he only produces video, which is typically useless for any detailed investigation. Yes it can be done on video, but that does not appear to be Corbett’s style, he makes claims, refers to other video material, and that material is 90% lecturing and history on the dynamics of manufactured consent.

            I scrolled through his article list as much and read the first hundred or so titles (quickly) could not see anything on climate change
            I’m not saying I couldn’t find something if I were willing to put in many hours, but that is exactly my point. Corbett has not laid out a non-heavily opinionated, step by step argument against climate change, in my 90 minutes of looking for it.

            As for the fist 4 references in the nexus article, 1 was a dead link, 2 linked to a story about an ABC news issue and the referred statements were actually in the COMMENTS section to that, with zero references in which one could verify that those scientists said what they said, and even if they did that is still mere opinion, we need to see the precise actual evidence they used by which they formed their opinion. And another linked to a real scientist but was in some kind of article and once again more about the politics than the precise science.

            Sorry if this is deeply boring detail, but this is what it takes to critically think about a science topic.

            As for the Ball links, the point about animals following climate is interesting but overall obvious and I suspect non-controversial for even climate scientists and yes it is politicized and the second is a journey through the censorship, basically, that he experienced and the rejection of his very reasonable claim that looking at the Hudson Bay Company’s date was a sound way to get a baseline of decadal cycles.
            Now I did not spend enough time to read every word of your links but did listen to the whole Corbett interview and bits of Big Oil, and the Pseudoscience vignette, and as I said looked over his whole site, which I consider to be quite chaotic and difficult to navigate.
            I do appreciate your responses though and apologize for being so critical of your efforts.

            If you can get a sense of what I am looking for (papers and arguments) and try to find it more accurately, I’d be happy to look into that.

  4. Episode 5 of Never Again is Now, was particularly interesting. Historian, Uwe Alschner, presented information about banker activity during and after the war. The BIS was used to hide Nazi finances. FDR was taking steps to end BIS and also going after Allen Dulles. FDR died shortly after in mysterious circumstances; allegedly from complications of Polio.

  6. Just watched this week’s Money and Markets. Watched Meryl Nass’ hearing last week as well. Although you, as always, talk about many very important things, I was so glad to hear you mention the expert witness in the Nass trial and his name: Dr. Faust. As you say, you can’t make this stuff up. Can’t wait for the cross and the destruction of this character’s testimony that I expect to occur. And the looks on the panelists’ faces.

  7. “The human race is going to be eating fritos in front of a TV.”

    Man, I want to go on some looong bicycle rides with you. Consider the Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes in September. All downhill from east to west.

Comments are closed.