By Paul Homewood
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01822-1/abstract
Yes, it’s the same old pack of lies they roll out every year, trying to convince that global health is suffering because of climate change.
You only have to read the first paragraph to understand that this is a political document, not a serious scientific one.
And sure enough, they claim to have found “record-breaking threats” to health and even survival:
Each year is the same – they ignore real world data, which positively shows the opposite to be true, and instead concoct increasingly obscure and dubious ways to satisfy their agenda.
The idea, of course, that the world’s climate has changed so much since 2015 is itself absurd – but that does not stop the Lancet from saying it has!
They start by claiming that heat-related deaths have increased since the 1990s, but there is no mention of the fact that cold-related deaths have decreased by many more. They claim that heat exposure has reduced labour productivity, forgetting that, thanks to mechanisation, productivity has rocketed and workers are therefore less exposed to heat stress.
They claim that extreme precipitation has increased since 1960, but this is not derived from real world data, which is far too sparse to make such bold claims. Instead it is all based on computer modelling.
To be fair, the IPCC also claim that the number of heavy rainfall events has been increasing, but significantly also tell us that they can find no global trends in floods. In many places heavy rainfall is welcomed because it alleviates drought. Try telling the Indians that they had too much rainfall during this summer’s monsoon. As for those who suffered during the Dust Bowl years in the US, they would have given their right arm for a few storms.
It is the same with drought. Apparently 48% of the world’s landmass was affected by at least 1 month of extreme drought last year, up from 15% in the 1950s. But droughts build up over a period of months and even years, not one single month. It is plainly ridiculous to use such a metric – I wonder why they did?
And as with extreme precipitation, the Lancet study does not use actual rainfall data, but computer models which can be programmed to come up with any results you want, because the real world data they would need simply does not exist for most of the world.
But where we do have actual precipitation data, the IPCC only find that although some regions have seen an increase in droughts, while others have seen fewer:
And so it goes on. Apparently there are more sand storms, but again this is gleaned from computer models, a “state-of-the-art multimodel reanalysis ensemble”.
Malaria, we are told, is being spread by global warming, despite the fact that the number of new cases has been steadily dropping, with the exception of COVID affected 2020:
But the biggest joke of all must be this:
The mind boggles!
If they really were concerned about global health, there is plenty or incontrovertible, real world data which they could use, instead of their phoney models.
Around the world people live longer, child mortality is much lower, fewer live in extreme poverty or are undernourished. They live healthier lives, thanks to better access to clean water, medicines and healthcare. The children are better education, and technology is transforming people’s lives.
Thanks mainly to fossil fuels food output hits new records year after year. Meanwhile in contrast to the Lancet’s claims of desertification, the planet is greening because of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
.https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
But the Lancet are not interested in the truth, nor for that matter do they appear to care about global health.
They only want to generate alarmist headlines, to push forward their Net Zero agenda.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A comment on Paul’s article:
Since 2017 The Lancet has no longer been concerned with mere medical matters. Since they appointed Christiana Figueras as board Chair they have transformed their remit to climate issues.
As they stated then:-“The Lancet Countdown has the potential not only to improve the response to climate change, but to transform it. The collaboration is therefore delighted to announce that Christiana Figueres will join as Chair of its High-Level Advisory Board. Much as she did with the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres will help guide the Lancet Countdown to maximise its impact and deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement.”
Christiana Figueres.
Does she have a medical degree?
If not, why is she on the board of a medical journal, let alone the board chair?
The same reason that James Murdoch became an NED of GSK 15+ years ago: they both have media experience in creating-, managing- and profiting from hysteria, panic and chaos.
As for the definition of “extreme weather”, I wonder if the authors have ever lived in North America. What might be thought of as extreme is literally built into the cake here…
Extreme in most places is defined as ‘outwith the experience of the majority of the resident population.’
Thing is, when in December 1981 SE England had an ‘extreme cold/snowy snap’, with daytime temperatures below freezing, night time minima dropping toward -20C, it was indeed extremely unusual for us, but it would have been seen as ‘normal winter weather’ in 1980s Austria.
It looks like to me that they want to cover up the excess death caused by the covid jabs. In Australia the excess death is about 20% since second half of 2021 and it still happens in 2024. There is no excuse as it happened in states like Tasmania and Western Australia where there was no delta covid variant, only omicron – in Tasmania it started well into 2022. Climate change is a convenient scapegoat for medical establishment and globalist alike.
Climate Change, due to man made CO2 entering the atmosphere has resulted in increase Covid vaccination casualties. The additional heat stress impacting the patient’s capacity to tolerate injected poisons, has been modelled…..
There, that should give the Lancet/media something to work with and explain why the excess deaths from Covid vaccinations is on the rise.
Have you factored in population ageing and changes in population structure? When you do that for the UK, almost all the excess mortality magically disappears.
That’s strange. How would ageing and population structure explain sudden deaths of younger people, nurses, doctors, or certain demographics, such as black male athletes?
Have you any evidence for excess mortality in those groups?
Perhaps not in the Lancet, but this is an active area of study and there are many articles addressing the topic.
A couple of relatively benign publications are here and they contain several relevant references:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/advpub/0/advpub_JE20240158/_article/-char/ja/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ehf2.14680
On the Japan paper, comparisons from one year to the next (2021 v 2022) are not particularly useful, and it’s worth noting that most of Japan’s Covid deaths occurred in 2022, and not 2021.
On the latter, 28 cases out of 14,000,000,000 doses administered, but have you considered how many cases of myocarditis may have been prevented by the vaccine, Covid being known to cause myocarditis as well?
I refer you to my other answers regarding the overall excess mortality situation.
Edit:
None of the papers you quoted addresses the claim regarding specific groups of people you made in your original post.
What a untruth information. Myocarditis was not prevented but covid mRNA inoculation but created by it. Plenty of evidence in published papers by prominent cardiologists like Dr Peter Mccullough and Dr Aseem Malhotra. In Thailand comprehensive study of 200 high school students undergoing Pfizer mRNA covid inoculation there were reported 7 serious myocarditis cases and overall 30% of students had markers increased showing damaged hearts to some degree.
There are now calls to ban covid mRNA inoculation in many countries:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/british-cardiologist-calls-for-mrna-vaccines-to-be-suspended-due-to-heart-risks/news-story/7ced98559a790d325afc44ceb9cc2b95
Yes
One of the many papers published on this topic:
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Of course, the paper has received, as expected, a lot of blowback from the usual pharma shills, demanding it be retracted, while its lead author Saskia Mostert’s home institute, The Princess Maxima Center, even put out a grovelling statement distancing themselves from the research saying:
The coordinated attacks against them have been comprehensively documented by Aussie17 podcast.
Much of that covers 2020/21, AKA Covid, for 2022, here’s what the ONS has to say on the subject: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/monthlymortalityanalysisenglandandwales/december2022
1. Main Points
In 2022 (using provisional monthly data), deaths were above average in both England and Wales (6.3% and 5.0% above average, respectively), but when accounting for population size and age structure, the age standardised mortality rate (ASMR) for the year was below average for both England and Wales (0.7% and 1.1% below average, respectively).
Read podcast “Where are the Numbers” of Dr Norman Fenton from mid 2024. He explain very clearly what statistical trick was performed by English government agency to hide the truth.
Not true. Read Dr Norman Fenton analysis. He is the most accomplished statistitian who looked into this matter. And how would you exlpain a step rise in excess death? Are you saying that the population aged in half a year. What a nonsens argument.
OSR response to Fenton: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/ed-humpherson-to-norman-fenton-martin-neil-clare-craig-and-scott-mclachlan-ons-deaths-by-vaccination-status-statistics/
Re the population “ageing in half a year”, the baseline for a lot of these excess mortality comparisons is the years 2015-2019, the mid-point being 2015, so for 2022 you are in effect comparing the population in that year with the population in 2017, so everyone is five years older, and not six months as you seem to think.
The reason this is important is because of a couple of minor historical events known as The Great Depression, and World War II, plus the post-war baby boom, the first two events significantly depressing births (and thus the mortality rate pre-2020), the baby boomers are now moving into their late 70s and are replacing the earlier cohort as the people who are now dying.
The upshot of the above is that raw excess-mortality comparisons are misleading, once you account for changes in the population’s age and structure, the vast majority of excess deaths disappear, what remains can be easily be accounted for by Covid (that’s still killing people BTW), plus lingering disruption to health services (1/10 of the population on a waiting list in the UK).
The ONS has done this work and come to the above conclusion, I have replicated their work from raw data and come to the same conclusion, the claimed excess-mortality is simply a statistical artifact, and not a real increase in death rates.
One final question, why are the anti-vax brigade so convinced that vaccinations are causing excess-mortality, but so ready to dismiss Covid itself as a cause at the same time?
OSR response is a total white wash to cover up for the government. After all OSR is a government agency so it would by expected they will produce “results” they like. The same trick was copied in Australia (2 months later then in England) by our agency but in our country the excess mortality only halved from about 20% to about 10%.
And yes, to your second ad hominem loaded question real medical scientists not only are convinced but also have plenty of evidence that covid inoculation (not a vaccination but genetic inoculation) killed and injured millions of people world wide. Currently there are few legal cases in final preparation against Pfizer for intentionally hiding information about high DNA contamination of their product when they switch production from PCR method (used in trials) to line 2 (using plasmids). “Fake checkers” are now in full force trying to suppress this development.
And finally since you have reverted to start labeling people you disagree with by ad hominem “anti-vax brigade” I am done with you, so do not bother to reply to me, I will not read it.
Any weather event is evidence of catastrophic climate change, unless it’s one of those edge cases that goes against the narrative somehow – then it’s a minor blip, nothing to see here, move on. IMHO there are two types of AGW’ers, the true believers and the CO2-money men, and two reasons why they remain steadfast in their beliefs, best summed up by these two quotes;
Well in a roundabout way they are correct.
The Climate Change scare has given us Nut Zero in the UK with the increased blackout risk in Winter, add in the ending of the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners by the same Nut Zero followers and winter deaths will increase.
Doctors have lost the plot. Just look at the antics of the BMA…
Why are British doctors considering rejecting the Cass report?https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2024/07/why-are-british-doctors-voting-to-reject-the-cass-report
Science is so passé
It sounds like the majority of doctors have not weighed in, just those who, for whatever reason, want to be officials of the medical association. If the BMA is like any organization I’ve ever been associated with, the “leaders” do not represent the body of members at all.
In some places euthanasia can be quite lucrative and doctor ratings go up as patients don’t leave bad reviews.
The BMA should better be looked upon as a trade union than as a professional body.
They keep saying “since the beginning of the industrial revolution ” when what they should be saying is “since the end of the little ice age “
With computer models these days you can prove almost anything you want to prove even to the extent of demonstrating that human intelligence and ability to reason is decaying much too rapidly for its own good.
Who’s to blame for the mess? Start with climate and climate change mitigation and the lack of quality professionals, e.g. Mann the Cheat from the beginning, and the house of cards will tumble very quickly even with medics, vaccinations and COVID19 scaremongering. There are excellent medical professionals out there but they need public help and support to stop the decay they do not want either. What we don’t need are political lackeys messing with our professions since it has harmed in the past and will do so again and again if we don’t stop it and fast. .
.
Who’s to blame for the mess? It’s climate change, of course. It explains almost anything you want it to explain.
The only health that medical journals like Lancet and NEJM really worry about are to the profit margins of the pharmaceutical, and medical device corporations; the health of the public, not so much!
If they REALLY cared about the public’s health they would be recommending greater consumption of ruminant meats, like beef, lamb, antelope, and buffalo; that are laden with the essential fatty and amino acids so necessary to human health and higher brain function! Instead they recommend the food-like substances that are so profitable for Big Food, like the highly processed sugars and grains, and industrial wastes like processed vegetable oils; of which franken-foods are mostly comprised!
They leave it entirely to the public, and a small minority of medical doctors, to use the 150+ year old high fat/low carb diet (HFLC) to prevent and/or reverse the “diseases of civilization” like diabetes, heart disease, and dementia that develop once cultures stop eating their traditional diet end begin consuming the extended shelf life products so valuable to the processed food corporations!
The most glaring evidence of this lack of concern is the complete dearth of new policy to combat the growing epidemic of obesity plaguing the world, that began developing about a decade after Western governments started recommending the low fat diet; just the right amount of time for these chronic diseases to begin to be in evidence!
Good comment. It seems that science of the food pyramid was settled quite some time ago.
MAHA.
Thanks, Scissor!
It’s just a summation of what I have been learning by reading and listening to Gary Taubes and the other leaders of the HFLC movement. If you put together the philosophies of Allan Savory, Peter Ballerstedt, and a few others; you see the ideal human diet as predominantly meat-based, with dairy and locally grown produce added depending on one’s particular genotype. The food world would be best served by a network of small farms and ranches, and First Nation and indigenous populations could return to traditional foods without the highly processed sugars and carbs that they cannot properly digest due to their genetics!
I look at the Vegan food in the Supermarkets, mostly made by the multinationals and highly processed in order for it to look and taste like meat. Perverse that they end up eating worse food than carnivores.
Is it not interesting how MANY of the heads of organizations such as Lancet are vacua?
Are you speaking of one J. Trudeau?
Didn’t The Lancet, or the The Guardian or the BBC, or all three a few years ago conduct studies that showed extreme cold has been responsible for more deaths and adverse health issues over the years in general than extreme heat? So now they’ve switched to less-than-objective reporting and general fear-mongering regarding climate issues. Could it be that they’re all receiving generous government and private funding to push such an agenda, or is it just a coincidence?