The Arctic sea ice should have melted away years ago, according to the “experts”.
In 2007, for instance, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told us that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. In December that year, Jay Zwally of NASA agreed, giving the ice till 2012.
A year later, Professor David Barber went one step further, saying the ice would all be gone that very summer. Then we had Al Gore confidently predicting it would all disappear by 2016.
For sheer persistence in getting it wrong, however, first prize must go to Professor Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge:
· In 2012, he predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015/16
· In 2014, he thought it might last till 2020
· In 2016, he confidently predicted the Arctic would be ice free that summer (though curiously he now defined “ice free” as less than 1 million square kilometers!)
Strangely, all these “experts” have been pretty quiet lately. Little wonder, because Arctic sea ice extent is just as large now as it was when all of those fatuous claims were made.
To be fair, they were only talking about summer sea ice. Even they were not daft enough to think that there would be no ice in winter either.
As is always the case in mid-September, the sea ice has just provisionally hit its minimum extent for the year, at 4.574 million sq km. Much of it is still over a meter thick.
There was a decline in ice cover during the 1990s and early 2000s, which led to the fears expressed above. However, real Arctic experts have known for years that the Arctic climate is cyclical.
For instance, the Arctic underwent a warming phase in the 1920s and 30s. According to a US Weather Bureau report in 2022:
There followed a much colder period in the 1960s and 70s, when sea ice extent grew substantially, a time known as the Sea Ice Years in Iceland with half the island surrounded by ice.. As a result, attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years, were abandoned.
With the advent of full satellite coverage, official data for sea ice became available in 1979, the very time when the ice was at its fullest extent.
On a longer time scale, of course, scientists know that sea ice has been far less extensive for most of the last 10,000 years.
But where global warming is concerned, real science goes out the window!
Single oral dose of Ivermectin as prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2
Trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a single oral low dose of Ivermectin
Ability to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection?
Ability to reduce symptoms if infection did occur?
Methods
Asymptomatic community-dwelling adults
Enrolled within 72 h of close contact with a case of SARS-CoV-2.
Single oral 200 µg/kg dose of Ivermectin or placebo.
65Kg woman given 13mg
80Kg man given 16mg
The primary outcome
Conversion to a positive PCR or RAT test within 14 days of close contact.
Secondary outcomes
(for those who tested positive)
Days alive free of symptoms in the 14 and 28 days following ivermectin
Days from close contact until a positive PCR or RAT
Results
N = 536 (86 met inclusion criteria and were randomised)
68 adhered and were included in the analysis.
Ivermectin arm
11/36 tested positive
Placebo arm
11/32 tested positive
So, ivermectin did not prevent people testing positive
Days from close contact until a positive PCR or RAT
Increased by 2.3 days in ivermectin group.
P = 0.033
So, ivermectin lengthened the incubation period
Viral load needed to precipitate clinical disease took longer to develop – indicating an antiviral effect.
Infection may have been prevented from primary contact, – indicating an antiviral effect.
Days alive free of symptoms
Increased by 2.5 days in ivermectin group.
P = 0.036
So ivermectin delayed onset of symptoms in people who tested positive
(Longer asymptomatic period)
Controlling included
Age, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, body mass index, hypertension, lung disease
Conclusions
We did not demonstrate that a single oral low dose of Ivermectin administered to asymptomatic adults within 72 h of close contact with a case of
SARS-CoV-2 prevents conversion to a positive PCR or RAT.
(may have done with a larger sample size)
Amongst those who did convert to a positive PCR or RAT
Ivermectin significantly lengthened the time from close contact to conversion
Ivermectin increased the number of days alive free of symptoms
More details
Initiation of this trial in late 2021
Discovery in 1975
Massively used around the world
Nobel Prize in 2015
Very low incidence of serious adverse side effects
No instance of resistance reported in over 25 years.
Ivermectin can bind to and inhibit the nuclear transport roles of the host importin α (IMPα) protein, which is known to mediate the nuclear import of various viral proteins and key host factors.
Other quite distinct antiviral actions of Ivermectin have been proposed.
High (therapeutic) concentrations collect in the lungs, stable for more than 30 days in cattle.
Trial was based on the strong clinical retrospective association of statistically significantly lower mortality in patients who received oral Ivermectin (200 μg/kg) compared with usual care.
But how do we know what the previous daily record was? Indeed, how does the Met Office?
Are we supposed to take them on trust? If so, that trust is misplaced.
An article in the Times 15 years ago, following a warm spell of weather, reminded readers that it had been much hotter in September 1895! Their archived news reports revealed that temperatures had reached 30.6C (87.1F) on both 25th and 27th of September in Strathfield Turgis, Hampshire.
When challenged about this on X, Marco Petagna replied that Strathfield Turgis was “not on our internal records for some reason”.
How convenient!!!!
In fact, the weather during that last week in September 1895 was exceptionally hot for days on end, much hotter than the 27.0C at Frittenden. The highest readings for the month were variously set on dates between the 24th and 29th at different locations:
Strathfield Turgis was no fluke or outlier.
A number of sites up and down the country exceeded 27.0C/80.6F, on the 24th, 25th, 237th and 28th:
Note that North Foreland recorded 81F on the 25th, the day under discussion.
These are just a small selection of stations, used in the Met Office Monthly Summaries. There will be hundreds of other sites, such as Strathfield, and given the prolonged nature of the heatwave in 1895 and its widespread geographical coverage, it seems inevitable that many other sites topped 81F that day.
Petagna’s comment about “internal records” is revealing. It indicates that the Met Office has simply binned any temperature data it deems to be “too high”.
As one commenter wisecracked:
In the meantime, it is clear that we cannot trust any daily record claims made by the Met Office.
On the topic of splitting up the MMR vaccine into 3 separate vaccines, everyone should know that in 2012, two Merck virologists came forward and explained that when Merck sought to change the label on its MMR vaccine and approval for ProQuad (a combination MMR and varicella vaccine), it “falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is.” (See Complaint ¶ 1.)
As detailed in the whistleblower lawsuit, Merck obtained a license for its mumps vaccine in 1967. (Comp. ¶ 16.) In the late 1990s, to obtain approval for ProQuad and change the label on its MMR vaccine, Merck needed to reconfirm its claims of efficacy for its mumps vaccine made thirty years prior. (Comp. ¶ 22.) Two of Merck’s virologists working on testing the efficacy of the mumps vaccine revealed that after Merck could not demonstrate a 95% efficacy for its mumps vaccine, the results were simply fraudulently falsified to achieve this result. (Comp. ¶¶ 15-131.)
As explained by the virologists, Merck took blood samples pre-vaccinated with the mumps vaccine and then exposed them to the mumps virus. (Comp. ¶¶ 25-28.) Suspecting a test against a live strain of mumps would not yield a 95% efficacy, Merck tried to improperly obtain this rate using an attenuated strain of the mumps virus. (Comp. ¶¶ 29-30.) When that would not achieve 95% efficacy, Merck tried different virus dilutions, different staining procedures, and even more liberal counting techniques. (Comp. ¶¶ 31-32.) The Merck lab even improperly added animal antibodies to the blood samples and still could not achieve a 95% efficacy rate. (Comp. ¶¶ 33-39.)
When it was clear that even improper testing techniques could not produce the desired result, the test reports were simply falsified. (Comp. ¶¶ 40-51.) According to the Merck virologists, to document the desired efficacy rate, Merck destroyed result sheets and falsified various documents. (Id.) The Merck virologists claim this fraud was done with the direct authority and approval of Merck’s senior management. (Comp. ¶¶ 52-58.)
Now you know.
This may explain why outbreaks of mumps still regularly occur in highly vaccinated populations. See, e.g.:
The change in the law to enable this came as an amendment, SI2024/1162, to the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998. As a Statutory Instrument, there was no parliamentary debate. There was no full scientific Impact Assessment; just a de minimis financial assessment by DEFRA and limited DHSC input. The stated aim is to increase blood folate levels in pregnant women in order to reduce the risk of neural tube defects (NTDs). The Government estimates a reduction of about 200 Neural Tube Defect (NTD)-affected pregnancies annually, approximately 20% of UK cases. Most of these would have ended in a termination of pregnancy or a neonatal death but a small number of births of children with spina bifida may be avoided.
No proper assessment of the harms of folic acid has been carried out, yet it is proposed to give it to every man, woman and child in this country indefinitely, rather than just giving supplements for a few months to those women wishing to take them. Most notably there are several groups of people whom the NHS currently advises to avoid folic acid medication. This includes patients with cancer, Vitamin B12 deficiency and cardiac stent procedures (patients on haemodialysis were also included in the list until recently). Analysis of long term outcomes from 10 randomised trials has shown a worrying 23% increase in cancers, 24% for prostate cancer.
What is not at all clear, is how people will avoid folic acid once it is in virtually all flour.
The UK Government presents folic acid fortification as a settled, cost-free public health win.
Every one of its load-bearing claims collapses under examination.
First, “folic acid is a B vitamin.” This is the foundational deception. Folic acid is not a vitamin at all. It is a synthetic, oxidized compound that does not occur in nature. The actual vitamin is folate, found in leafy greens and liver. Folic acid must be converted in the body, and a large share of the population converts it poorly due to common MTHFR gene variants. The result is unmetabolized folic acid circulating in the blood, which has been linked to masking vitamin B12 deficiency and to accelerated growth of existing pre-cancerous lesions. Calling it “a B vitamin” is the rhetorical move that makes the whole policy sound harmless.
Second, “it helps prevent neural tube defects.” The honest version is that high-dose supplementation in women with a previous affected pregnancy showed benefit in a 1991 trial. What the government has done is extrapolate that clinical result to low-dose, population-wide dosing through bread. Those are not the same intervention, and the “200 cases prevented” figure is a model output, not a measurement.
Third, and this is the killing blow, the only large randomised trial in otherwise healthy women, the Hungarian trial by Czeizel and Dudás, found that every category of fetal death was higher in the folic acid group. Total fetal deaths were 374 (13.4%) against 304 (11.4%) in the control arm, an excess of 70 deaths that was statistically significant. In that same trial, the number of neural tube defects prevented was six. That is roughly nine to twelve dead babies for every defect apparently prevented. The mechanism was named by the trial’s own principal investigator in a 1997 Lancet paper: terathanasia, the death of the malformed. Folic acid may reduce the count of babies born with neural tube defects not by curing them, but by killing the affected embryos before birth.
Fourth, the government knows this and has chosen to redefine the dead babies as a benefit. When asked directly in Parliament, the Department of Health answered that folic acid extended the viability of early conceptuses, so the excess miscarriages were really evidence of extra life-creation. No evidence was supplied for this. The data refute it, because if early losses were merely being promoted upward, chemical pregnancies should have fallen. They rose alongside every other category.
Fifth, the surveillance data cannot detect the harm. The US monitoring system only records fetal deaths at 20 weeks or later, while the excess deaths in the trial were overwhelmingly first-trimester miscarriages and chemical pregnancies. The harm signal is structurally invisible to the system used to claim success.
Sixth, the “200 babies” figure is inflated. Even on the government’s own final assessment, the operative effect is around 31 fewer live births a year, of which about 28 would be children living with disability. The rest of the “200” is mostly terminations avoided and a notional quality-of-life valuation. The economic case values a life-year at £70,000, more than double what the NHS uses for medicines.
Seventh, the decline in neural tube defects happened before folic acid existed. Spina bifida fell 82 percent between 1972 and 1991 in England and Wales. The recommendation to take folic acid arrived in 1992, after almost all of that decline had already occurred. Folic acid is being credited with a fall it could not have caused, and after 1992 the rate of decline actually slowed.
Eighth, the safety question for everyone else, which the campaign suppresses entirely. The NHS itself lists categories of people told to avoid folic acid, and most of them have no idea that mandatory fortification means avoiding flour entirely. These include people with cancer, people with B12 deficiency, people with stents, and people with kidney disease.
Ninth, take cancer. Lifetime cancer risk in the UK is around one in two, so you are mandating a synthetic compound linked to driving pre-cancerous growth for a population, half of whom will at some point be cancer patients or survivors. Unmetabolized folic acid has been associated with accelerated growth of existing pre-cancerous lesions, particularly in the colon. For anyone with active cancer or a history of colorectal adenomas, folic acid is not benign. It is fuel.
Tenth, then B12. Folic acid masks vitamin B12 deficiency, allowing neurological damage to progress invisibly while blood markers look normal. The elderly are the classic at-risk group, and they are also heavy bread consumers. The policy doses the exact population most vulnerable to hidden B12 deficiency.
Eleventh, stents and cardiovascular disease. People with coronary stents and certain vascular conditions are among those advised against folic acid, with some trials showing worse cardiovascular outcomes, including restenosis concerns, in people with existing heart disease. Those patients cannot avoid the exposure without abandoning a staple food.
Twelfth, then kidney disease. Folic acid metabolism and accumulation are altered in renal impairment, and patients with kidney disease are routinely told to be cautious. Again, no exemption, no alternative, no consent.
Thirteenth, beyond the NHS list, there is the prostate cancer signal, with some research suggesting a doubling of prostate cancer risk in men, and concerns about immune response in women. None of this was given a value in the government’s assessment. The final assessment named potential harms to others but then did not quantify them.
Fourteenth, like men, infants and children are a group that cannot benefit. For children, the duration of mandatory folic acid ingestion will effectively last a lifetime. Yet the dosage per kilogram is far higher for children, when existing fortification of breakfast cereals is added to the new mandatory fortification of flour and hence bread.
Finally, the “nearly half of pregnancies are unplanned” argument is a confession disguised as a justification. Because some women do not know they are pregnant early on, the answer is to medicate every man, woman, child, and elderly person in the country through the bread supply. The number needed to treat is roughly 440 women to prevent one neural tube defect. The number needed to harm is one in 50 women suffering a lost pregnancy. The harm is about nine times more likely than the benefit. Where are the safety studies for a whole population?
The structure of the policy is the scandal. Tens of millions of people will be exposed every year with zero possibility of benefit. Only a small subgroup, women in early pregnancy, is the nominal target. For everyone else, the benefit is exactly nothing, and any risk at all is pure downside. The people this is unsafe for are not a rare corner case. They are half the population over a lifetime, concentrated precisely in the groups that eat the most bread.
This UK government policy is built on a misrepresented trial, an inflated model, the reclassification of fetal deaths as a public health victory, and the forced medication of the entire population, including the very groups for whom folic acid is contraindicated, with no risk-benefit assessment and no consent. From December 2026 it becomes compulsory.
A letter has been sent to the minister last month and a very inadequate response received, here. Letters have also been sent to all medically qualified MPs and peers, with as yet one reply.
Login
