ANOTHER week but not all bad news, though my personal week hardly started well with the news of yet another old friend’s cancer diagnosis, seemingly sprung from nowhere. Same age as me, fit and healthy till now. My elder son, however, did strike a counter-note. ‘Mum,’ he said, ‘remember Dad got cancer at this age. He was fit and healthy too!’ That was well before any of us had heard of covid, so it may be the case. It has never been a ‘fair’ disease.
Having visited my friend who’s taking her treatment nobly and positively, I rushed back to London for Andrew Bridgen’s House of Commons meeting on how to protect us from the World Health Organization’s ‘pandemic treaty’ power grab. Not just us in Britain, but citizens around the world. Another packed committee room, but our head-in-the-sand MPs were noticeably absent this time. It was an amazing opportunity too, to meet and hear the remarkable and wonderfully forceful Christine Anderson, the German MEP whose speech you can find here. As well as to catch up with fellow fighters!
Here I am with Christine Anderson.
Andrew’s other guest panellists were the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse and Dr Meryl Nass, the US physician who successfully treated covid patients with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. She is suing the Maine Medical Board who suspended her over ‘misinformation’.
Kruse explained how the WHO, unconstitutionally, intends to remove our fundamental right of self-determination, what the starting point of our debate must be, the timeline of the treaties we are working to as well as the treacherous amendments to the International Health Regulations. His speech brought out how easily we can be gulled by the complex technical process, legalistic but misleading language and the painstaking effort required to untangle and challenge it. They, at the WHO and UN, are paid to this. We are not. You can listen to my (amateur) recording of Andrew’s introduction and his speech here.
It was an upbeat event and there is nothing like a get-together for raising the spirits and stoking our energy for the battles to come. So our thanks once again go to Andrew for keeping the ship of dissent afloat.
We need it to be. The propaganda is relentless. Where is the evidence, I wondered, for the latest WHO estimate of 1.4million lives saved by the Covid vaccine in Europe? Roger Watson did a bit of sleuthing for me and he found its source in an effectiveness studies website hosted by none other than our old friend the Bloomberg School of Health and Johns Hopkins University. The study is incredibly complex, he said, and nigh on impossible to dissect. The focus is on older age groups where deaths may possibly have been delayed by the vaccines, but for how long? Of course it completely ignores any harms – serious adverse events and deaths.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan, I noticed, got a slap on the wrist from the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading claims in ULEZ expansion adverts. Typically only a rebuke, not an instruction to retract. That was on Wednesday. But the really no, no, no news came on Thursday.
It was indeed a bad day for America as the precedent it sets means that freedom to disagree or criticise of a matter of public policy – a founding principle of that country – is now in doubt, and should you choose to voice any dissent you can be brought before a jury, held responsible and fined.
Everyone is tweeting that Mark must appeal. Yes, but what about all the legal fees? He is only a man, though he appears to be a mountain. Life over the last 12 years has been a non-stop legal battle at huge cost to his health and his career. And it will go on in London next month with his suit against Ofcom. He is fast becoming a 21st century martyr to the cause of freedom and truth.
In response to this travesty of justice, explained here, we will be doubling down on TCW and, in the next few days, be setting out the background to Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph and explaining just why it is so important for us to continue to challenge it and the invidious and insidious reach of climate zealotry in general.
Better news on Thursday was that the US Supreme Court appears poised to back Trump in the Colorado ballot challenge case. All news outlets for once seem to agree. And then there was the release of Tucker Carlson’s much anticipated interview with Putin (against a backdrop of the chaos reigning in Ukraine with Zelensky firing his commander-in-chief). You can find all the links to the interview on our site – both to watching it and reading the transcript – here.
Typically the Telegraph coverage trivialised it. They shouldn’t have. It was a compelling watch. By Saturday morning the interview had 166million views on X and ten million on YouTube, and I don’t know how many on Tucker’s own site. Fox News must be spitting. There was a lot of analysis out there in addition to ‘the traitor Tucker’ response. Most important for me was Tucker’s key question after Putin gave his account of the betrayal of the post-1991 promises to Russia, the existential and real threat of the expansion of Nato, the role of the CIA in Ukraine, the 2008 suggestion that Ukraine join Nato and US support for the Maidan revolution. Carlson says: ‘That was eight years before the current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you?’ Putin’s answer is the one that the MSM and our politicians won’t countenance, first the Donbas and second the Nazification of Ukraine.
I found the interview fascinating and important. Putin set out his terms for talks and unequivocally denied having territorial ambitions across the continent whether the Baltic, Poland or Latvia. Putin is no pushover. Love him or loathe him, he is of a different ability and indeed stature from the West’s apology for political leaders. The latter would do well to respect him and try to understand his position rather than, as they do, caricature him and present him as a unidimensional monster. It only betrays their own infantalisation and ignorance.
My end note today is readers’ emails and the pleasure I get from reading and responding to them. I got a particular boost this week from managing to help two TCW stalwarts with restoring comments on the screens (without referring to our longsuffering webmistress). And then there was all the fun of the caption competition. We will do it again. The winner’s reply was the best email I had all week so I hope he won’t mind me sharing it: ‘Just a quick note to say thank you for awarding the prize to my entry in the caption competition’, he wrote. ‘if I seem unduly excited about a relatively minor achievement, it’s because I’ve never won anything before. No, never! So thanks.’
Well, it’s our thanks that are owing to you, I’m Old-Fashioned! You deserved it!