Net Zero Poison

The hoax, our food, & fertility

Yes, we’re all still interested in the Middle East War, the Ukraine War, the War on Trump, the War on Whites, the War on Law & Order, etc., but I’d offer than none of these are a bigger threat to America, Americans and the West than the Climate Cult - still hard at work destroying freedom, liberty, and prosperity.

What is the catalyst for bringing this up now, in the midst of the riots in America to overturn democracy and law by those pretending to “save democracy” while protesting the arrest of lawbreakers as they shout “No one is above the law?”

Our food supply.

The Pharmafia has a new drug on the market - for cows: Bovaer. It’s a feed “supplement” for lactating cows. What is Bovaer? The Public Health Policy Journal has this to say about it:

Bovaer, by inhibiting a living enzyme, disrupts biological processes that are essential for proper digestion and overall health. Despite its claims of environmental benefits, Bovaer is classified as flammable, corrosive, irritating, and a health hazard. Additionally, it is suspected of damaging fertility and causing cancer.

It’s designed to reduce cow burps. Because methane.

As always, the governments tell us it’s “safe and effective.” Hmm… Perhaps some can be convinced that a good cold glass of flammable corrosive will quench their thirst and that a chemical feed additive recognized as a “health hazard” is "food,” but count me out.

What does “corrosive” really mean and why does it belong in our food?

The corrosive substances They are those capable of destroying or irreversibly damaging those surfaces with which they come into contact. For instance: sulfuric acid, zinc chloride, potassium hydroxide.

Corrosive substances they are dangerous for living beings. They can cause irritation or burns to the tissues of the skin, eyes, respiratory tract or gastrointestinal tracts that could well lead to death. This type of damage is known as chemical burns.

These types of materials should be used with means of protection appropriate: gloves, clothing, face masks. In places or containers where corrosive materials are deposited or contained, they must (according to international regulations) be marked with labels that have a standard icon representing corrosion.

Various governments are forcing their livestock farmers to feed it to their cattle. But what do the regulatory agencies of these same governments say about Bovaer?

In its assessment of Bovaer, the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) notes a range of concerning adverse effects, including:

• Reduced feed and water intake, smaller ovaries, and lower heart weight in cows

• Rat studies have raised red flags about fertility, carcinogenicity and genotoxicity at doses higher than the recommended level for general use

• Handling the additive could also pose risks to farmers including skin irritation, serious eye damage and possible fertility issues

• In one study a metabolite of Bovaer was detected in the milk of 3 out of 4, although it was dismissed due to its limited sample size.

Is it dangerous to humans?

Bovaer is toxic. Any product that comes with contraindications and you need to wear gloves and masks to handle it, should not be in the food chain.

The Hoax is a Hoax

The Climate Cult is all nonsense, anyway, so perhaps it would be good to start ignoring edicts to reduce our fertility, not feed animals additives one must wear a hazmat suit to handle, reject “food” that reduces cow and human fertility (remember - the climate cult is about depopulation, as is the Covid death vaxx), and generally think for ourselves again…

The more one reads about “Net Zero,” the more absurd it becomes that anyone is falling for it. Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT, has this to say about it:

In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd. Of course, many people (though by no means all) have great difficulty entertaining this possibility. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist in simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 37.3C rather than between 36.1C and 37.2C you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for climate (a comparably complex system with a much more poorly defined index, globally averaged temperature anomaly) is considered ‘settled science.’

Team Reality, based on fact, reason and rationality, however, cannot seem to come to grips with Team Zero. Why is this?

Human beings by and large make decisions based on emotion. “We’re all gonna die in 12 years,” or, “The earth has a temperature!” uttered by a government official or a globally-recognized organization like the UN IPCC, has more emotional pull than arcane discussion of the impossibility of predicting the climate a century from now and continuing reviews of the data that do not support the hoax. (Newsflash: no un-altered data support Team Zero.)

It’s pretty basic that warming and CO2 are not a problem:

The fact of the matter is that not even the Scientific Method supports Team Zero. The Climate Cult has created a hypothetical that - in their teaching - is not falsifiable as the enormous volumes of data and scientific opinion not supporting their hypothetical are dismissed as “denialist.” That’s religion, not science.

Among the many problems with the hoax are those described by a group of actual climate scientists in their Open Letter to the UN in ref the IPCC conference almost 20 years ago:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’ conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The problem with attacking the various data (apart from the eyes of the uninformed glazing over) is that the media long ago propagandized millions of people into believing what The Science grantophiles say, and what is written in the IPCC Executive Summaries (written not by scientists but by politicians and bureaucrats) subsequently magnified by a media almost no one trusts, regardless of the facts and opinions also in the body of various IPCC reports, and the statements of IPCC officials.

Rather than present attacks on the climate cult, attacks that only will be seen as “denialist” by those who have mainlined The Narrative, perhaps instead, the words of the senior UN officials perpetuating the hoax need to be presented to those insistent on believing the hoax.

Those choosing to believe the UN, then, and who, like most human beings, find it difficult to admit to being wrong or to having been misled, can fall back on their chosen Source of Truth to understand … the truth.

Those believing the UN & establishment political nonsense can grasp what the UN & globalists actually are up to, in their own words, to wit:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore,“ said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.”

And:

Christina Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change admits that the IPCC task is not about ecology but destroying capitalism.

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.

Think about that statment: “…we have given ourselves…” Translated: unaccountable, un-democratic elites deciding about our lives and prosperity all by themselves.

The “global warning” cult has never been about global warming. UN IPCC leadership has been announcing that fact for years.

Maybe we ought to pay attention?

… before they destroy our fertility, transportation, cities, food, appliances, freedom… and future.