Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1256467659894116

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post And know that the answer isn’t fighting the system… appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Join us today as donna discusses the argument against Jesus being an alien in a presentation at The Jim Bakker Show.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx2gYonx6Gk

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post JESUS IS NOT AN ALIEN appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Devout Christians Matt and Nicole Alexander have lost their teaching careers for refusing to bow to LGBTQ+ ideology. Matt shares how the family’s nightmare began after their son, Josh Alexander, was persecuted for taking a stand against male students in girls’ bathrooms.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKdroNgZWS0

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Canadian teachers fired for not ‘celebrating and affirming LGBTQ+’ ideology appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Magna Carta guarantees everyone in the UK the right to judgment by a jury of his/her peers.  Yet, last week Sir Brian Leveson proposed removing juries from certain trials in England and Wales to address backlogs of hearing cases in the Crown Courts. 

Juryless trials are not a solution; they are a step towards centralised control.  They would concentrate decision-making in the hands of professional judges, increasing the risk of institutional bias and state influence, and could lead to miscarriages of justice, as seen in Northern Ireland’s Diplock courts’ reliance on informants and relaxed evidentiary standards.

Juryless trials will erode democratic accountability and are a threat to individual rights, the rule of law and the UK’s constitution.

In mid-December, it was reported that the UK Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was considering scrapping jury trials for thousands of offenders to prevent the court backlog from reaching 100,000 cases.  To this aim, among others, Sir Brian Leveson was tasked with reviewing ways to scale back defendants’ rights to jury trials without undermining fair justice, including the creation of a new intermediate court with a judge and two magistrates.

This could see magistrates hearing more serious cases, some defendants losing the right to ask for their case to be tried before a jury and the creation of a new intermediate court, which would replace a jury with one judge and two magistrates.

The right to a jury trial extends back to the 13th century, and ministers are adamant that serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults – including rape – assault causing grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary and arson with intent will still be tried before their peers in Crown Court.

Jury trials could be scrapped to stop court backlog hitting unprecedented level, The Telegraph, 12 December 2024

The first part of Leveson’s report was published on 9 July 2025.  Leveson’s proposals have not yet been accepted by the Government and are not policy.  Mahmood has stated that she will consider the recommendations and respond before legislating in the autumn.

In an initial response to the report, the Bar Council warned against proposals to remove jury trials.  Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council, said:

We continue to argue that there is no need to curtail the right to trial by jury – from both a principle and practical position. Juries represent society and are a fundamental part of our system. And on a practical level, it remains unclear how the current resources in the system – magistrates, judges, court staff and courtroom capacity – will be able to meet the demands of the proposed new Crown Court Bench Division.

Leveson report: diversion welcome but no need to curtail trial by jury, warns Bar Council, The Bar Council, 11 July 2025

Similarly, the Law Society has expressed concerns that the proposed changes would undermine the historic jury system without effectively addressing the backlog. “Richard Atkinson, the president of the Law Society, said: ‘The proposed new division of the Crown Court on its own will not solve the Crown Court backlog. The government would have undermined our historic jury system for no effect’,” The Guardian wrote.

Earlier this month we published an article about an interview with Justin Walker, a member of The British Constitution Group.  During the interview Walker emphasised the importance of common law and the rule of law as a way to protect people from a tyrannical government. He said:

If somebody is tried because they have breached a statute, or whatever, it may be that the jury says, “Well, hang on a moment, we believe unanimously, we believe that this statute is unjust, we will find the individual not guilty. And in doing so, we annul the effectiveness of that statute.” In other words, what we’re talking about is that a jury is the ultimate defence and shield against tyranny.

Central banker tells his nephew: We control the press and the politicians, The Need for Sovereign Government Control, The Exposé, 5 July 2025

In the following, Conscientious Currency explains the importance of trial by jury in more detail.

The Perils of Abolishing Jury Trials: Lessons from Diplock Courts

By Conscientious Currency

Table of Contents

Introduction

The jury trial, a bedrock of the English legal system, a vital mechanism for ensuring fairness, community participation and resistance to state overreach, is once again under threat. Sir Brian Leveson last week unveiled radical proposals to “clear huge backlogs in Crown Courts in England and Wales,” his solution being to remove juries to “save the criminal justice system” ^[1].

If Leveson’s recommendations are implemented, the right to trial by jury could initially be removed for offences such as sexual assault, racially or religiously aggravated strangulation, harassment and child abduction. However, there is no reason why juryless trials would not be extended beyond these offences in the future.

Before we go any further, it is worth asking, given that trial by jury is a right, how it can just be “removed.” I guess the answer to that lies in the dismantling of our constitution, which has been ongoing for many years, and which continues unabated and largely unchallenged by the British population. This, I am afraid, has to change before we become some sort of federalised basket case country, run by 15 district mayors – more on that another day.

Proposals to eliminate jury trials in England are always framed as solutions to inefficiencies or “rising costs.” Nothing is ever said about the many years of constant government underfunding of the criminal justice system, woeful access to legal aid, legal aid rates payable for barristers and solicitors, and the fact that successive governments, whatever their colour, would like nothing more than to reduce the constitutional rights of those they work for, as far as possible.

If you remember, and how can we forget, jury trials were attacked during “covid,” when they were suspended due to the “emergency” at hand. This naturally caused a backlog of cases. Handy that – if you want to remove juries. Create a backlog by suspending jury trials, then claim you need to remove juries altogether, due to the further backlog of cases that suspending jury trials created. Make it make sense if you can. And for reference, before the March 2020 lockdown, there were approximately 39,000 cases waiting to be heard in the Crown Court. The suspension of jury trials during lockdown led, eleven months later, to a backlog which exceeded 56,000 cases ^[2].

The removal of jury trials is, of course, a grave threat to the rule of law and our unwritten constitution. The historical precedent of Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, (see below), where juryless trials were introduced during the Troubles, serves as a stark warning of the injustices that can arise from such systems. In her submission to the Justice Committee in October 2020, following the suspension of jury trials during lockdown, Dr Hanah Quirk stated ^[3]:

The suggestion is that any suspension of jury trials would be a temporary measure to reduce the backlog caused by the lockdown. In practice, this is unlikely to happen. Judge-only trials are speedier and cheaper, which will appeal to the Treasury and Ministry of Justice. Once ceded, rights are rarely reinstated. Once the principle of removing juries has been conceded, it would be easy for the government to raise the threshold for cases that could be considered without a jury. “Emergency” measures tend to have a much longer life than originally promised. The Belfast (“Good Friday”) Agreement was signed in 1997, but Diplock Courts introduced under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 were not abolished until 2007. The DPP for Northern Ireland can still certify that a trial should be held without a jury. The legislation was due to expire after two years but has been extended by successive orders since 2007; there were 42 such cases in the last year.

The highlighted portion of Quirk’s statement weighs heavily on me, as it underscores a troubling trend that began during lockdown. What was initially justified as a necessary response due to the mass fear mongering of the time, not only inflated the backlog of criminal cases by nearly 20,000 but also laid the groundwork for normalising juryless trials under the guise of protecting the justice system. The suspension of jury trials during lockdown, sold to the public as a measure “for everyone’s safety,” gained widespread acceptance. This set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for proposals to eliminate juries in certain trials, purportedly to “safeguard” the criminal justice system. However, let us be clear: removing juries is not about protection – it is a deliberate step toward state overreach, steering us toward administrative courts that dispense the executive’s version of justice. This should terrify us all, especially given that abolishing jury trials would undermine the rule of law, erode public trust, weaken protections against state power and destabilise our constitutional balance. Simply put, juries have an indispensable role in upholding justice and constitutional integrity.

The Historical and Constitutional Foundations of Jury Trials

The jury trial, rooted in Magna Carta of 1215, is a cornerstone of England’s legal and constitutional framework. Clause 39, which guarantees that no free man shall be punished except by the lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land, established juries as a safeguard against arbitrary state action. Jury trials have been a “central feature” of the English criminal justice system for centuries, evolving into a mechanism that ensures justice reflects community values. Within the UK’s unwritten constitution, which comprises statutes, conventions, and judicial precedents, juries serve as a democratic check on state power, balancing the authority of the executive, legislature and judiciary.

The rule of law, as articulated by A.V. Dicey, demands equality before the law, transparency in its administration and protection from arbitrary governance. Jury trials embody these principles by involving ordinary citizens in adjudicating serious criminal cases, ensuring that justice is not solely the domain of state-appointed judges. Juries make justice “seen to be done,” fostering public legitimacy. Abolishing juries would sever this historical and constitutional link, centralising judicial power and undermining the principle that justice is a shared responsibility between the state and its citizens.

The Injustices of Diplock Courts: A Cautionary Tale

Diplock courts, introduced in Northern Ireland in 1973 under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, provide a chilling example of the dangers of juryless trials. Established in response to the Troubles, these courts replaced juries with single judges for “scheduled offences” related to terrorism, citing concerns about jury intimidation and bias in a deeply divided society. However, the Diplock system led to significant injustices, highlighting the risks of removing public participation from the judicial process.

Diplock courts were criticised for compromising fairness, as single judges wielded sole authority over verdicts, increasing the potential for bias and/or state influence. In short, the absence of juries removed the diverse perspectives that mitigate individual judicial prejudices and represent community values.

Patrick Livingstone served 17 years in prison for the killing of 26-year-old council worker Samuel Llewellyn in west Belfast in August 1975, after being convicted in a Diplock Court. In 2013, Court of Appeal judges ruled that his conviction was unsafe ^[4]. He is quoted as saying, “Diplock (non-jury) courts are inherently unsafe. One man cannot sit up there and decide on your life. Diplock courts should be scrubbed now and all Diplock decisions should be expunged.”

In 2010, The Guardian reported on hundreds of people convicted during the Troubles, who were claiming miscarriages of justice arising from non-jury Diplock courts. ^[5] Some of those involved were juveniles at the time of their conviction. The article states: “As the appeals mount, a number of men who served as detectives with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) have told The Guardian how senior officers encouraged the systematic mistreatment of suspects at Castlereagh interrogation centre in east Belfast, and elsewhere, after the establishment of the Diplock courts in 1973. They say they took full advantage of the vague wording of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland which allowed the courts to admit confessions as evidence, providing there was no evidence they had been obtained through the use of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment. One retired detective commented: ‘Do repeated slaps around the face amount to torture? What about an occasional kick in the balls?’”

John Christopher (Christy) Walsh was another convicted in 1991 by a Diplock Court. He campaigned for 20 years to clear his name on the basis that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice. After two unsuccessful appeals, he was allowed an unprecedented third appeal based on new evidence and his conviction was overturned as unsafe in March 2010. He had by then served many years behind bars for something he had not done.

What the above cases demonstrate is that not only do police use “heavy handed” tactics to induce “confessions” where vague legislation around the same is introduced, (something we see a lot of these days), but also, without a jury to scrutinise such evidence through collective deliberation, a judge’s reliance on prosecution evidence only leads to questionable convictions. The cases illustrate, very simply, how juryless trials amplify errors and biases, undermining the rule of law’s requirement for impartiality.

Diplock courts were widely, and rightly, perceived as tools of state control, particularly by nationalist communities in Northern Ireland, who viewed them as biased toward the British government. A report by Amnesty International (1998) documented concerns that Diplock courts facilitated convictions based on weak or circumstantial evidence, eroding public trust to support the state’s narrative of the day. ^[7] One part of their report stated: “Amnesty International has been concerned that lower standards for the admissibility of confession evidence, lack of full disclosure by the prosecution to the defence of crucial evidence, and the curtailment of the right of silence have resulted in unfair trials. The Special Rapporteur recommended that the standards in emergency legislation for admitting confession evidence should be abolished. He further recommended that the “restoration of the jury system, which has been a culture within the criminal justice system in England, would help restore public confidence in the administration of justice.”

This perception of bias mirrors the risk in England, where juryless trials will no doubt be seen as serving state interests, especially in any politically sensitive cases, further weakening public confidence in the judiciary and the law itself.

Diplock and Human Rights

The Diplock system was also heavily criticised by human rights organisations for violating Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) which guarantees the right to a fair trial for everyone, both in criminal and civil matters. The use of “supergrass” trials in particular, where informants provided evidence in exchange for immunity, led to mass convictions and the absence of juries allowed judges to accept evidence without the robust scepticism a diverse jury might apply. This, of course, resulted in miscarriages of justice ^[8]. These injustices serve only to highlight how juryless trials prioritised state objectives over individual rights, a risk that would loom large if England adopted a similar system. Juryless trials in England would bear striking similarities to the Diplock courts, with comparable risks to the rule of law and constitutional integrity.

Just like Diplock courts, juryless trials would concentrate decision-making in the hands of professional judges, increasing the potential for institutional bias and state influence, eroding the principles of Article 6 ECHR. Juryless trials could also be extended to cases involving national security or public order and could eventually mirror the “scheduled offences” of Diplock courts, where state priorities overshadowed fairness. The absence of juries would reduce public participation in such cases, eroding democratic accountability – a strength of the jury system. Just as Diplock courts alienated communities in Northern Ireland, juryless trials in England will foster perceptions of an elitist judiciary, detached from public values.

A 2023 YouGov poll ^[9] showed that 56% of Britons support retaining jury trials, with only 20% supporting a judge-only trial, evidencing that the removal of juries would indeed alienate over half of the public. Further, the procedural shortcuts associated with juryless trials, such as relaxed evidentiary standards, could echo the Diplock courts’ reliance on confessions or informant testimony. Without juries to deliberate on such evidence, judges may well prioritise efficiency over thoroughness, risking miscarriages of justice akin to those discussed above. These parallels underscore the dangers of adopting a juryless system, rife for replication of the injustices of Diplock courts, but on a much broader scale.

The Rule of Law and Impartiality Through Community Judgment

The rule of law requires impartiality, transparency and resistance to undue influence, all of which jury trials uphold in ways that juryless systems cannot. Juries, composed of randomly selected citizens, bring diverse perspectives that mitigate individual biases because they have an emphasis on varied community representation. In contrast, Diplock-style courts comprise single judges, who, despite their training, can be swayed by institutional pressures and contested evidence. Juryless trials in England therefore risk homogenous decision-making, undermining impartiality.

Juries also act as a bulwark against state overreach, as they have the power to acquit defendants in cases of perceived injustice, through jury nullification (for reference, see the famous 1670 Penn and Mead case). In this way, juries are a “buffer” between the individual and the state. Diplock-style courts, by contrast, will facilitate state-driven prosecutions, where judicial deference to prosecution evidence and the political will of the day will lead to controversial convictions, empowering the state and weakening protections against overreach.

Jury trials also foster public confidence through their involvement of citizens directly in the justice system. This helps with transparency, but, moreover, with understanding of not only how the Court system operates but also the police when they investigate and bring evidence of crime. Diplock-style courts obviously exclude all public involvement and hence will fuel distrust, alienating citizens who will lose a tangible role in justice. This thoroughly and completely undermines the rule of law’s reliance on public consent.

The Brief Constitutional Implications of Abolishing Jury Trials

England’s unwritten constitution depends on a balance of powers, with juries ensuring public participation and judicial independence. Jury removal would have profound consequences, such as:

– Diminishing democratic accountability.  Juries embody democratic principles by giving citizens a stake in justice. Unlike appointed judges, jurors reflect the electorate’s diversity, providing democratic oversight. The exclusion of juries would concentrate power in the state, undermining accountability. This would shift the constitutional balance toward a technocratic judiciary

– Undermining common law traditions.  The common law, a pillar of the constitution, evolves through societal input, with juries applying contemporary values to legal questions, bringing “lay perspectives” to the law. Diplock-style courts, by relying on judges alone, will produce rigid interpretations that favour the state. Juryless trials, therefore, risk stifling the common law’s adaptability, weakening our constitution’s flexibility.

– Precedent for further erosion.  Our unwritten constitution is vulnerable to incremental changes. The Diplock courts of Northern Ireland, initially introduced as a temporary measure, persisted for decades, normalising juryless trials. Abolishing juries in England for some trials could set a precedent for further restrictions, such as on legal aid or judicial review, destabilising our constitutional framework further

– A clear move toward guilty until proven innocent.  Judges in juryless trials, especially magistrates or single judges, develop biases from repeated exposure to similar cases or pressure from government and/or political and media sentiment. Unlike juries, which are randomly selected and disband after each case, judges are part of the legal establishment, and this leads to a subconscious lean toward conviction, subtly shifting the burden onto defendants to prove their innocence, inverting the centuries-old presumption of innocent until proven guilty

In Summary

Jury trials place the decision of guilt or innocence in the hands of ordinary citizens, who are less likely to be swayed by institutional pressures or preconceived notions tied to the state or legal system. Many citizens now have a more independent grasp on fake politics and the real issues arising therefrom, to a large degree – yes, not all are propagandised by the BBC – and believe me when I say judges and magistrates live in another world to the rest of us.

Juries can acquit based on conscience, even when evidence suggests guilt, and this acts as a check against unjust laws or state overreach. Judges, bound by legal precedent and less insulated from institutional pressures, will not exercise such discretion and will prioritise legal technicality and political correctness over justice. Juryless trials are therefore a clear attack on the concept of jury nullification, a vital democratic principle in the UK, empowering citizens to reject unjust or unacceptable legislation through their verdicts. Jury nullification serves as a cornerstone of the social contract, ensuring that the law reflects community values and resists overreach by the state. Juryless trials directly threaten this mechanism by removing the public’s ability to challenge legislation, undermining the democratic foundations of the justice system, and further eroding the social contract that binds citizens and the state in mutual accountability.

Further, without juries, the state, through judges and magistrates, has more control over outcomes because the judiciary can be bought, influenced or threatened. This risks a system where the state’s narrative dominates, and defendants face a more sceptical, less diverse decision-maker. The adoption of juryless trials, therefore, risks escalating existing threats to justice, particularly as judges may soon increasingly rely on streamlined processes and AI tools. These technologies, if misused, could introduce errors or biases that skew toward guilt, placing an unfair burden on defendants to disprove flawed evidence. Compounding this danger is the state’s push to criminalise misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation. If juryless trials were extended to such cases, as seems likely given current state priorities, they would pose a clear and immediate threat to free expression and individual rights.

The precedent of Northern Ireland’s Diplock courts, which led to many miscarriages of justice, serves as a stark warning of the perils of juryless systems, where state influence and procedural shortcuts undermine fairness. Rather than abolishing juries, the state should prioritise investment in the criminal justice system to address court backlogs and prevent its “collapse.” Resources could be redirected from less urgent expenditures, such as excessive foreign aid or unproven environmental initiatives, to strengthen a system that serves the public’s interest.

Juryless trials are not a solution; they are a step toward centralised control that erodes democratic accountability. We must resist their introduction with the same vigour as we oppose digital IDs and central bank digital currencies, recognising them all as part of a broader effort to diminish individual freedoms and entrench state power.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/07/16/juryless-trials-are-not-a-solution/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Juryless trials are not a solution for Crown Court backlogs; they are a step toward centralised control appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Why would Pfizer tell COVID vaccinated men not to have sex?

In the Pfizer Papers, Pfizer warns vaccinated men not to have intercourse with childbearing age women but they do not say why, except that it’s clear that something they fear in “exposure” to the vaccine is via sperm. This may be what Pfizer was afraid of. https://t.co/KODppz2wif

— Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry. (@naomirwolf) April 21, 2025

The Pfizer Papers written by WarRoom/DailyClout research volunteers, features new reports which are based on the primary source Pfizer clinical trial documents released under court order and on related medical literature.

Source:  https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/pfizer-warns-vaxxed-men-not-to-have-sex-with-women-of-childbearing-age/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Pfizer Warns Vaxxed Men Not To Have Sex With Women Of Childbearing Age appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The World Economic Forum is seeking a new chairman after founder Klaus Schwab stepped down as head of its board of trustees at a meeting on April 20.

In the meantime, vice chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has been appointed as interim chairman

In a statement on Monday the WEF said that the board had unanimously appointed Brabeck-Letmathe as interim chairman, in accordance with its rules and regulations, and a search committee has been appointed to select a new chairman.

This is the same Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the former CEO of Nestle, who famously stated in 2017:

Source:  https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/ex-nestle-ceo-who-said-waters-not-a-human-right-appointed-as-wef-interim-chairman/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Ex-Nestle CEO Who Said ‘Water’s Not A Human Right’ Appointed As WEF Interim Chairman appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Last week, we published an article about the project Arla has launched to feed cattle with Bovaer which contains silicon dioxide, propylene glycol and 3-nitrooxypropanol (“3-NOP”).  According to the FDA, Bovaer is not a food, it is a drug.

There has been an enormous public backlash with the public boycotting Arla products and Arla’s partners.  

There seems to be a lot that is unknown about this new drug being fed to dairy cattle. Considering it is what can only be described as an experiment on both animals and humans, it’s not surprising farmers and the public are outraged.

A farmer posted a quick video on Sunday to thank the public for standing up to Arla.

If you would like an indication of which products Arla is potentially contaminating with its drug and so should be avoided, the Daily Mail has helpfully provided a list in its article ‘Full list of Arla Foods’ Bovaer ‘contaminated’ products boycotted by customers: from Lurpak to Cravendale and even Starbucks, as controversial cow feed additive sparks backlash’.

The UK Food Standards Agency is insisting Bovaer is “safe.”  A spokesman told MailOnline: “Milk from cows given Bovaer, a feed additive used to reduce methane emissions, is safe to drink.”

On Monday, The Standard said,  “On 26 November, Arla announced a new project that it hopes will cut the UK’s methane emissions.  Methane is a greenhouse gas and contributes to climate change … The initiative is part of Arla’s wider commitment to reduce the environmental impact of its dairy production. The organisation is aiming to reduce its CO₂ emissions by 30 per cent by 2030.”

Using the excuse “to reduce methane emissions” and “CO₂ emissions” and then tying it to Agenda 2030’s deadline of 2030, should raise an immediate red flag to anyone who has done even a little research in the last few years.

There is no anthropogenic climate change crisis, and, as we mentioned in our article last week, methane is an important part of the biogenic carbon cycle.  As we all know from primary school lessons, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the elixir of life, supporting plants since the world began and making virtually all life on Earth possible.

The whole false anthropogenic climate change narrative should have disintegrated in 2009 when the Climategate emails were released.  But such is the determination, and money, of those who want to keep the UN’s agenda alive.

Related: Climategate is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

The Standard also reiterated the claim that Bovaer is safe, even though the outlet conceded that the UK Food Standards Agency said 3-NOP “should be considered corrosive to the eyes, a skin irritant and potentially harmful by inhalation” to humans handling it.

The Standard quoted an animal nutrition specialist at DSM, the first half in DSM-Firmenich which is the manufacturer of Bovaer, as saying “In every case, it [the additive] has proven safe for animal, farmer and consumer.”

How many “cases”? How has Bovaer been proven safe and what testing has been conducted?

It seems The Standard didn’t ask these basic questions. Besides that, the news outlet should know better than to rely solely on a quote from someone whose livelihood depends on the success of Bovaer.

Arla published a statement on Monday that said “Bovaer has undergone extensive testing to ensure it is safe for cows and humans.”

Yes, Arla would say that. Notably, Arla offered no proof to back up their statement.  The world has long moved past the “trust me because I said so” stage.  Perhaps Arla hasn’t realised that most of the population doesn’t trust the government, regulatory or public bodies, or the large corporations that stand to benefit from the various scams pushed by the controligarchs at the United Nations and the World Economic Forum.

So, has Bovaer “undergone extensive testing to ensure it is safe for cows and humans” as Arla claims?

Table of Contents

UK Food Standards Agency Assessment

The Food Standards Agency (“FSA”) doesn’t seem to have carried out any testing.  It merely evaluated risk assessments provided by DSM-Firmenich and relied on information from the European Reference Laboratory.

In its application for approval, DSM-Firmenich provided two tolerance studies to prove Bovaer’s safety for dairy cows.  One study involved 16 cows, 12 that were given varying doses of Bovaer for 90 days and 4 in the control group.

“The applicant claimed that a margin of safety of 5 could be derived from this study, but the JEG challenged this claim based on shortcomings in its design and implementation … It was considered that such a low sample size would be unlikely to yield reliable statistics, especially given that two cows … were euthanised prematurely,” FSA said.

The second study involved 80 cows, 60 were given varying doses of Bovaer for 56 days and 20 were in the control group. The highest dose given to a group of 20 cows was 200 mg/kg.

“At the 200 mg dose, effects identified included decreased ovary size, decreased serum activities of ALT (alanine aminotransferase) and LDH (lactate dehydrogenase), and reduced feed and water intake,” FSA noted.  However, the FSA explained these possible adverse effects away and concluded that “the additive could be considered safe at a dose of 200 mg/kg.”

DSM-Firmenich provided three studies to prove safety for the consumer, one carcinogenicity study and two studies for genotoxicity.  The carcinogenicity study was conducted in Wistar rats.  One of the two genotoxicity studies was conducted in vitro (outside a living organism, for example in a petri dish or test tube) and the other in vivo (within a living organism).

For the in vivo study, “the results [for genotoxicity] were negative except for males dosed at the top dose and sacrificed at 24 hours.”  Based on this study, which lasted for 24 hours before the animals (it doesn’t mention what kind of animals, we assume mice or hamsters) were euthanised, FSA concluded that “3-NOP is non-genotoxic in vivo.”

On the information the FSA has made public, it doesn’t seem Bovaer has “undergone extensive testing.”

Read more: Outcome of assessment of 3-Nitrooxypropanol “3-NOP” – Assessment, Food Standards Agency, published 31 March 2023 and updated on 20 March 2024

US Food and Drug Administration Assessment

Yesterday the Daily Mail reported that “DSM-Firmenich considers Bovaer a ‘blockbuster’ product and a recent deal to licence Bovaer in the US is expected to generate revenues of more than $200m (£158m).”  But evidence of the “extensive testing” Arla claims seems to be less “extensive” and more “narrow” there as well.

In a letter regarding 3-NOP marketed as Bovaer earlier this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) said:

Based on the information provided in your letter, Bovaer 10 is an article (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of an animal, and therefore it is a drug. [Emphasis added]

Directions for Use:

Data supporting effectiveness has been evaluated when fed for no more than 105 days. Methane gas emissions were measured for individual animals. Data were not evaluated at the herd, farm, or larger scale. Data were not evaluated for other gas emissions. Milk production, feed efficiency, and milk solids have not been evaluated. [Emphasis added]

Caution:

Do not feed undiluted. For use in feed for lactating dairy cows only. Not for use in dry dairy cows, bulls, replacement heifers or bulls, growing cattle, or other ruminant species because safety and effectiveness have not been evaluated in these animals. Silicon dioxide from all sources cannot exceed 2 per cent by weight of the complete feed.

A decrease in dry matter intake may be observed in some animals. [Emphasis added]

Warning:

Not for human use. Caution should be exercised when handling this product. 3-nitrooxypropanol may damage male fertility and reproductive organs, is potentially harmful when inhaled, and is a skin and eye irritant. Personal protective gear, including eye wear, a dust mask, and impervious gloves, should be worn when handling this product. Operators should wash hands after handling. If accidental eye exposure occurs, rinse eyes thoroughly with water. The safety data sheet contains more detailed occupational safety information.

Letter to Elanco from the FDA, 24 May 2024

It seems according to the information supplied to the FDA, Bovaer is a drug, not a food, and there has been limited testing, less than 105 days, on a small scale. Also, does “a decrease in dry matter intake” indicate that the animals are eating less because they are unwell?

Although there are no details in the FDA’s letter there seems to be sufficient information to make an initial assessment; can anyone claim Bovaer has “undergone extensive testing”? No. Tests were conducted for less than 105 days on a small scale; “data were not evaluated at the herd, farm, or larger scale.”

As a drug, should it be only the FSA that approves Bovaer’s use in the UK? How much do people who are supposedly specialists in food safety know about pharmacology and drug safety? It would be prudent to view Bovaer as an unapproved, unregulated drug until proven otherwise.

European Food Safety Authority Assessment

Expanding on the “potentially harmful when inhaled” statement in the FDA’s letter, the European Food Safety Authority (“EFSA”) noted that “the active substance 3‐NOP may be harmful if inhaled … the genotoxicity of 3‐NOP is not completely elucidated, [so] the exposure through inhalation of the additive may represent an additional risk for the user.”

“The genotoxicity of 3‐NOP is not completely elucidated” contrasts with what the FSA said.  The difference in opinion may be due to timing.  EFSA’s assessment is dated 2021 and the FSA assessed Bovaer two years later in 2023 (updated 2024).

We have to ask: if caution should be exercised in handling the product, how safe is it for cows to eat?  It seems this is not as well-known as Arla claims.  EFSA says:

Systemic exposure or site of contact toxicity for the active substance 3‐nitrooxypropanol (3‐NOP), for which genotoxicity has not been fully clarified, in the target species, is unlikely based on ADME data available.  Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Bovaer 10 was safe for dairy cows at the maximum recommended level. However, as a margin of safety could not be established, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for other animal species/categories. [Emphasis added]

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of 3‐nitrooxypropanol (Bovaer 10) for ruminants for milk production and reproduction (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd), European Food Safety Authority, 19 November 2021

Do you believe Bovaer has “undergone extensive testing”?

Always Ask Questions

If in doubt, the precautionary principle should apply: If it is possible that a given policy or action might cause harm to the public or the environment and if there is still no scientific agreement on the issue, the policy or action in question should not be carried out.

The British charity Soil Association agrees.  In response to queries received about Arla’s dubious project and the products Arla markets as organic, the Soil Association said:

Soil Association organic standards stipulate that all ingredients or components of a feed additive must be actively approved for use and be deemed safe and nutritionally useful for the animal.  The main components that make up Bovaer are not included in the list of approved products or compounds and as a result, Bovaer would not be permitted under organic standards and for use in organic farming.

Any organic milk [Arla] supply must meet organic regulation requirements and the production has to be completely separate from any non-organic milk. This must be demonstrated and independently audited every year.

Soil Association response to questions about Bovaer and Organic, Soil Association, 2 December 2024

Arla is attempting to introduce potentially harmful drugs to animals in their feed under false pretences of a “climate change crisis.” Do you trust Arla to follow organic standards? No?  Nor do we.

We don’t need science papers, studies or food standard authorities to use our discernment.  Based on our God-given logic and reasoning, and our recent experiences of the harmful covid “vaccines” – which were and still are publicised as “safe and effective” by health and regulatory bodies – would you risk drinking milk or eating cheese produced by Arla?

If you choose not to participate in yet another experiment, you can find farms run by people who feel the same and are declaring themselves to be Bovaer-free HERE. You can also find a Bovaer-free dairy near you HERE.

You may be interested to know that DSM-Firmenich, the manufacturer of the drug Bovaer, also makes dietary supplements and medical nutrition products for humans.  In the video below, recorded on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos at the beginning of the year, DSM-Firmenich CEO Dimitri De Vreeze spoke about the company’s “sustainable feed additive” and the weight-loss drug market, from which it hopes to profit in the form of new innovations in, for example, pre-biotics and pro-biotics to restore gut biomes.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/12/04/arlas-bovaer-food-additive-is-not-food-it-is-a-drug/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Arla’s Bovaer food additive is not food, it is a drug appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

It is a myth that euthanasia is painless and dignified. There is absolutely no evidence to show that it is either. But there is plenty of evidence to show that it is neither.

The following essay is taken from Jack King’s book `They Want To Kill Us’. Please read the book. The conspirators who are taking us into “net zero are lying and pushing the world into accepting euthanasia (aka doctor-assisted suicide). The media refuse to carry material questioning euthanasia. There is no debate in public. No one will interview Jack King. But in November 2024, MPs in Britain will discuss introducing euthanasia into Britain.

From Jack King

It is a convenient myth (convenient for the proponents of euthanasia) that euthanasia (in its various forms and incarnations) is painless and dignified.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that it is either.

But there is plenty of evidence to show that it is neither.

Euthanasia does not provide the painless, peaceful death which its advocates claim it to be. There is no perfect way for the government to kill people. As Samuel Beckett said: “Even death is unreliable.”

Here are 25 things everyone should know:

1. A study in the journal ‘Anesthesia’ reported that there were no standardised methods for euthanasia and so, as a result, there are frequent cases of prolonged and distressing deaths. There appears to be a high incidence of vomiting, re-awakening from coma and prolongation of the dying process (with some individuals taking up to seven days to die.)

2. In America, doctors cannot access drugs to use in cases of the death penalty because of cost and availability. International drug companies are unwilling to provide drugs intended to kill people on ethical grounds. (It is unusual to see drug companies citing “ethical grounds” as a reason not to do something. I suspect that the real reason is that the drug companies are worried more about legal and reputational issues.)

3. Dr Bryan Betty, medical director of the Royal New Zealand College of GPs has warned that mixing concoctions of drugs has led to traumatic deaths.

4. There is considerable confusion about what to do if an initial attempt at euthanasia fails. Should the patient be told that they have to give their consent a second time? Or a third time? What should be done if a patient is semi-conscious and has not died? Should they then be kept alive? Or should another attempt be made to kill them?

5. A study performed in the Netherlands showed that in 21 of 114 cases, the patient did not die as soon as expected or woke up and the doctor had to kill them for a second time.

6. What happens if the doctor or nurse who is performing the euthanasia has left the building – which is likely to happen if a death takes a number of days?

7. What happens if a doctor or nurse cannot put an IV line into a vein? (This is something which often happens with elderly patients whose veins may be frail or damaged.)

8. The same drugs which are used for killing prisoners on death row are sometimes used to kill patients who have consented to euthanasia. But there is evidence that the killing of prisoners does not always go smoothly and can take longer than might be expected. (Lethal injections were introduced as more humane than the gas chamber or the electric chair. There is no evidence that they are.)

9. One of the drugs used in the authorised killing of patients is propofol which can sting as it flows through a vein when given in normal doses. No one knows what effect it has when given in large doses in euthanasia.

10. Dr Joel Zivot, an anaesthesiologist and critical care doctor, has suggested that death by euthanasia could feel like drowning. If paralysing drugs are used, the patient appears calm, peaceful and quiet – but that doesn’t tell us what the patient is experiencing.

11. When killing drugs are given orally, the death can take up to ten hours. If a doctor or nurse is not available with an IV kit ready, the distress to patients and relatives can be considerable.

12. People being killed by drugs may make gasping noises. “We don’t think they are signs of distress,” said Dr James Downar, a specialist in palliative and critical care. Note the word “think.”

13. Monitors are not used when a patient is being killed. This means that there is no evidence about what is happening, and death can only be certified by a doctor or nurse feeling for a pulse. No attempts are made to monitor brain or cardiac response.

14. Autopsies of executed American prisoners show the accumulation of fluid in the lungs. This is very distressing, for the patient is effectively drowning in their own secretions.

15. Experts fear that patients being killed may suffer intolerable, unbearable physical or psychological pain.

16. In Belgium, the relatives of a 36-year-old woman heard screams when she was supposedly being euthanised. A post-mortem showed that the woman had been suffocated with a pillow after the drugs failed to kill her.

17. An elderly, demented woman in Belgium was euthanised after her family decided that she should be killed. Since it was claimed that the woman didn’t understand what was happening, the doctor laced her coffee with her sedatives – while she was chatting with her family. The doctor then gave another sedative by injection. The woman then stood up. Family members held her down while the doctor injected her and killed her. In court later the judges declared that “given the deeply demented condition of the patient, the doctor did not need to verify her wish for euthanasia.” (I find it difficult to understand how this death could be described as euthanasia.)

18. A gunshot would be quicker and probably more painless than drugs. Why don’t advocates of euthanasia endorse the idea that doctors should simply shoot patients? Patients could, like Nurse Edith Cavell, be put on a chair and shot in a scruffy courtyard. It would be faster and more certain than any other way of killing. A firing squad could be made up of doctors and nurses – with special fees for the occasion, of course.

19. In more than half of the cases where individuals in Oregon, USA were subjected to euthanasia, there is no record of whether or not there were any complications.

20. Complications which have been recorded during euthanasia include: difficulty in finding a vein, spasms, twitching, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, sweating, gasping. One instance of euthanasia failed because the doctor had ordered the wrong drug. Another attempt was delayed when the doctor had to leave to fetch a second batch of lethal drugs.

21. Taking lethal drugs by mouth can be traumatic. It is not unusual for patients to take many hours to die. One patient took 104 hours to die. One patient became unconscious 25 minutes after swallowing lethal medication but woke up and regained consciousness 65 hours later.

22. One report showed that lethal injections caused severe pain and severe respiratory distress with associated sensations of drowning, asphyxiation, panic and terror in the overwhelming majority of cases. Dr. Gail Van Norman has said that “It is a virtual medical certainty that most, if not all, prisoners will experience excruciating suffering, including sensations of drowning and suffocation from pentobarbital.”

23. A study of more than 200 autopsy reports after executions in nine American States showed evidence of pulmonary oedema in the lungs (likely to cause a feeling of drowning or suffocation)

24. Midazolam used in executions has caused signs of pain – including gasping, choking and coughing, with patients heaving against their restraints.

25. Evidence shows that some people who choose assisted suicide vomit their lethal dose of drugs before it can be absorbed.

Note: The essay above is taken with his permission from Jack King’s book `They want to kill us’. You can buy a paperback or an eBook for under a fiver from Amazon. Just CLICK HERE I believe this is the only place where you can find the truth about euthanasia.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/10/31/euthanasia-is-not-painless-peaceful-and-dignified/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Euthanasia is not painless, peaceful and dignified appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Dr. Ardis joins us for an in-depth discussion on some of the most pressing and controversial topics of our time. We’ll delve into transhumanism and its implications for humanity, explore the cutting-edge advancements and potential risks of nanotechnology, and critically examine the truths and dangers surrounding vaccines.

Dr. Ardis will also shed light on hidden health truths that are often suppressed or attacked. With his extensive knowledge and detailed analysis, don’t miss this opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of these crucial issues!

Source:  https://rumble.com/v5cjds9-dr.-ardis-joins-what-theyre-not-telling-you-about-transhumanism-and-nanotec.html

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post What they’re NOT telling you about NanoTechnology appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

According to a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in May 2024, “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems.”

The authors, Andy May and Marcel Crok, argue that the sceptical position on dangerous man-made climate change is supported by a comprehensive literature review.  In other words, those who are disparagingly labelled by the establishment as “climate change deniers” have credible evidence on their side.

Writing an overview of their paper, May and Crok said:

The case that human greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) control the climate as claimed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) or that the resulting climate change is dangerous, is very weak.

How do we show that assertion is weak? There are many options. The AR6 WGI [Working Group I] and WGII reports define climate change as the global warming since 1750 or 1850 … The Little Ice Age, a phrase rarely used in AR6, extends from about 1300 to 1850. It was a very cold and miserable time for humanity, with a lot of well-documented extreme weather in the historical record from all over the Northern Hemisphere. It was also a time of frequent famines and pandemics. We show that arguably today’s climate is better than then, not worse.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May Petrophysicist, 30 May 2024

May and Crok’s paper is behind a paywall.  However, they have made the submitted version, which contains all the changes suggested by the peer-reviewers, publicly available: See HERE.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems

The main argument made in May and Crok’s paper is that the evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) to support the claim that human-caused climate change is dangerous is not convincing.

Firstly, the IPCC claims that human greenhouse gas emissions are the “main driver” of warming since 1979, but this is disputed. Natural climate oscillations like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”) can explain a significant portion of the 20th century warming.

The AMO is a cyclic phenomenon of sea surface temperature (“SST”) anomalies in the North Atlantic Ocean. It has a significant impact on global weather patterns. The theoretical measure of the variability of the SST of the North Atlantic Ocean is called the AMO index.

The AMO index oscillates between positive and negative phases. During the positive phase, the North Atlantic Ocean experiences warm SSTs, while during the negative phase, SSTs are cooler.  The AMO index is associated with shifts in hurricane activity, rainfall patterns and intensity, as well as changes in fish populations.

In their paper, May and Crok “detrend” the AMO index, i.e. plot the raw data rather than show the data as a trend line, and compare it to the UK Met Office’s HadCRUT4 detrended records (see below).

The paper noted:

There are several key features displayed in Figure 2. First, we observe that the secular trend in the AMO of 0.3°C is about 30% of the warming observed globally in the 20th century.33 Next we observe that the warming period from 1980 to 2005 coincides with an upturn in the AMO index. The AMO index has been traced to 1567AD, thus it is a natural oscillation. These observations cast some doubt on the AR6 claim that all 20th century warming is due to human influence and there is no net natural impact. 34 The second feature we will point out in Figure 2 is that the full AMO climate cycle is 60-70 years, and it matches the estimated global temperature changes in the 20th century.

Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

Secondly, the IPCC’s evidence for human influence, such as the “atmospheric fingerprint,” is disputed and the statistical methods used are questioned. Climate models also have issues, overestimating tropical tropospheric warming compared to observations.

The paper raises questions about the statistical methodology used by the IPCC to justify the “anthropogenic fingerprint” and argues that the statistical underpinnings of the anthropogenic fingerprint are seriously flawed.

The paper also discusses discrepancies between climate models and observations, particularly in the tropical troposphere. It points out that most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (“CMIP”) and IPCC climate models overestimate warming in the tropical middle troposphere by a statistically significant amount.

May and Crok argue that there is no clear evidence of unusual or dangerous weather or climate events that can be definitively attributed to human-caused climate change. It cites trends in extreme weather events like hurricanes and droughts, which are either flat or declining, as well as declining economic losses from weather disasters as a fraction of GDP. This lack of clear evidence challenges the IPCC’s conclusions about the direct impact of human activities on extreme weather events.

In conclusion, the authors note that climate change, whether natural or human-caused, has both benefits and costs, but the IPCC only examines the downside risks and ignores the potential benefits, such as increased plant growth from higher CO₂ levels.

Clearly, there are two sides to climate change … Warmer temperatures and more CO2 will mean more food at a lower price for nearly everyone, but in some areas, drought will increase and in others additional precipitation will cause flooding. However, with modern technology and cheap energy, we can build aqueducts to bring water to dry areas and build dikes and seawalls to protect areas prone to flooding. Sea level rise is currently a very modest two millimetres per year, it may be accelerating at about 0.02 millimetres per year per year, 72 but the rise in the next century will be less than a foot, about a third of the normal average ocean daily tide.

Conclusions, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

They also point out that “fossil fuels” are not the problem they are made out to be and reducing them to zero will devastate economies and hurt the poor the most:

Currently fossil fuels supply about 80% of our energy, reducing this to zero rapidly will devastate the world economy and cause widespread suffering, especially for the poor.

Modern global warming, since 1950, has reduced GDP by less than 0.5%, a trivial amount given that the economy has grown 800% in that time.75 Using IPCC scenarios, Lomborg estimates that economic growth will decline from 450% to 434% over the 21st century. Will anyone notice?

The infrastructure to replace fossil fuels does not exist and likely cannot be built in a short time. Current realistic estimates of future energy use suggest that fossil fuels will still supply half our energy in 2050 and beyond.77 Yet, no credible evidence exists that this is a problem or will become a problem. Recent research into climate change has suggested that nature plays some role, and certainly greenhouse gas emissions may play some role as well. What we do not know is how much of climate change is human-caused and how much is natural. No drastic changes to our economy are justified until we can figure this out.

Conclusions, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

In the abstract for the paper, the authors had already explained:

Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming. Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.

Abstract, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems, Andy May and Marcel Crok, 29 May 2024

There has been some criticism of May and Crok’s paper which the authors have addressed.  You can read their rebuttal on May’s website HERE.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/09/09/co2-and-warming-climate-are-not-problems/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems, peer-reviewed paper says appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.