21st Century Wire

INTERVIEW: Tom Nelson on Why Climate Change Policies are Ruining Economies

In this episode of the Patrick Henningsen Show on TNT Radio airing on Sept 22, 2022, Patrick speaks to independent researcher Tom Nelson about the dangers posed by western climate change policies, and how we can now see the damage they are inflicting on western economies, as well the intense propaganda campaign being waged by governments, mainstream media and globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum. All this and more. Listen: 

See more of Tom Nelson's work at:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com

  TUNE-IN LIVE to TNT RADIO for the Patrick Henningsen Show every TUES & THURS at 8AM-11AM (NEW YORK) | 1PM-4PM (LONDON) | 10PM-1AM (BRISBANE):

https://tntradio.live

READ MORE CLIMATE CHANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Climate Change Files

ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

If You Are Over 50 Your Government Wants You Dead

Dr. Vernon Coleman
21st Century Wire

In Britain, it is now official Government policy to ignore the needs of the elderly. Doctors and nurses are told to let old people die – and to withhold treatment which might save their lives. Hospital staff are told to deprive the elderly of food and water so that they die rather than take up hospital beds. Nursing home staff have even been given the right to sedate elderly patients without their knowledge. The only -ism that no one cares about is ageism.

But at what age are patients simply allowed to die? And how old is too old for patients to be resuscitated? At what point does society have the right to say 'You've lived long enough, now you must die and make way for someone else'? And why should resuscitation be decided by age? It is possible to argue that it would make as much sense to decide according to wealth or beauty. But ageism is now officially accepted. Anyone over 60 is now officially old, though in a growing number of hospitals the cut off age for resuscitation is 50.

We live in a politically correct world but the elderly don't count – particularly if they are white and English. Report after report after report shows elderly patients being left in pain, in soiled bed clothes. Elderly patients in hospital are ignored by staff and left to starve to death, denied even water if they cannot get out of bed and fetch it themselves.

Old people are a burden which the Government cannot afford and so the politicians will continue to authorise whatever methods are necessary to ensure that the number of burdensome old people is kept to a minimum. The existence of an absurd branch of medicine called geriatrics is used as an excuse to shove old people into backwater wards and to provide them with second-rate medical treatment. In February 2011, an official report condemned the NHS for its `inhumane treatment of elderly patients' and stated that NHS hospitals were 'failing to meet even the most basic standards of care' for the over-65s. It is no exaggeration to say that the NHS treats the elderly with contempt. (It used to be said that you can judge a civilisation by the way it treats its elderly.)

Get Clive de Carle'sNatural Health essentials of the finest quality, including vitamin & mineral supplementshere.
It was back in February 2005 that it was revealed that the Government had advised that hospital patients with little hope of recovery should be allowed to die because of the cost of keeping them alive. The Labour Government suggested that `old people' be denied the right to food and water if they fell into a coma or couldn't speak for themselves. So much for any hope for stroke victims. The Government suggested that the need to cut costs came before the need to preserve the lives of patients and decided it had the right to overturn a right-to-life ruling which had been made when a judge ordered that artificial nutrition and hydration should not be withdrawn unless the life of a patient could be described as 'intolerable'. (The judge had added that when there was any doubt, preservation of life should take precedence.)

Of course, depriving the elderly of food and water is sometimes more a consequence of incompetence than official policy. When my mother was in hospital she couldn't feed herself, but the staff didn't feed her. If no relative could get to the hospital to feed her she didn't eat. Drinks were put on her tray and then taken away untouched. `Not thirsty, today?' an idiot would ask merrily.

Meanwhile, the Government pours money into subsidising the lives of the lazy and the work-shy. Healthy 30-year-olds sit around growing chip backsides and beer bellies, slumped in front of their high definition digital television sets watching their choice of State subsidised satellite television, opening the windows to let the heat out because it's easier than turning down the central heating.

The elderly are classified as the 'Unwanted Generation': a political embarrassment. Elderly individuals facing blindness from age-related macular disease are denied drugs that might have prevented their blindness. The elderly are considered expensive, useless and expendable. The theory is that they don't contribute and rarely vote and can, therefore, be disregarded. But those who believe this will be old sooner than they think. And the definition of 'old' is getting younger by the year.

Wars have taught us that people seem to be prepared to accept as normal all sorts of terrible things. But how unbelievably awful it is that doctors and nurses accept that the elderly (officially the over 60s) must be allowed to die because keeping them alive isn't cost effective. The official attitude seems to be that old people don't matter and don't have rights simply because they are old. In mid August 2007, a Select Committee on Human Rights, comprised of MPs and peers, reported that 21% of hospitals and care homes failed to meet even minimum standards of dignity and privacy for older people. The Committee said it had uncovered evidence of neglect, abuse, discrimination and unfair treatment of frail, older people. (Their discovery came as no surprise to those of us who have been uncovering such abuse for decades.) How have we managed to forget that in the 1930s the Nazis deliberately starved and dehydrated elderly and vulnerable patients because they were regarded as a useless burden on society? That is exactly what we are doing today.

An astonishing (and horrifying) survey conducted among readers of the journals Nursing Standard and Nursing Older People showed that fewer than one in six nurses said that nothing would prevent them from reporting abuse of older people in their care.

In other words five out of six nurses would, at least sometimes, fail to report abuse of the elderly people they were being paid to look after. So, in my view, five out of six of nurses aren't fit to be nurses.

Would these same nurses ignore the abuse of children so easily?

I suspect not.

This is utterly appalling and an indictment of the modern nursing profession.

The same survey showed that six out of ten nurses would turn a blind eye to the abuse of the elderly. They would say nothing if they knew that an elderly patient or care home resident was being beaten, bullied or robbed.

Why are nurses failing their patients?

One reason is cowardice.

Unbelievably, it seems that nurses are frightened to report abuse in case they themselves are abused by the person doing the abuse.

Oh, please.

Another reason is, apparently, 'fear of misinterpreting the situation'.

What sort of political correct garbage is that?

Hospital patients and nursing home residents now often suffer malnutrition and dehydration, abuse and rough treatment, lack of privacy, neglect, poor hygiene and bullying. Thousands and thousands of elderly people are left for hours in soiled clothes.

How can anyone 'misinterpret' any of that?

And why?

Can it be because too many modern nurses are lazy, stupid and incompetent? Is it because too many are far too self-important to do anything other than stare at a computer screen all day long?

In my view, nurses who say nothing when they see abuse are as guilty as the abusers. A once great profession is, today, in a worse state than it was in the days of Dickens. Is it so very old-fashioned of me to believe that every nurse should always report every incident of abuse? Always. Without exception.

Ageism is, it seems, now endemic in health care. A reader wrote to tell me that when she visited her doctor complaining of painful knees her doctor told her, very abruptly, that her problem was that she was living too long. She was devastated. 'It wasn't said as a joke,' she told me. 'He meant it.' In the months before he died my father repeatedly complained: 'People treat me like a fool because I am old'. A 79-year-old reader told me: 'If you are over 55 they want you dead because you're too expensive alive.'

We now live in a world where it is considered acceptable for men and women to have to share a ward; where hospital bathrooms are so dirty that patients dare not use them; where dentists are so scarce and expensive that people have to resort to pulling their own bad teeth with the aid of a length of string tied to a doorknob. But it is the elderly who, above all others, are regarded as disposable and irrelevant. It is the elderly who have no rights. Sexism and racism are outlawed, but ageism is not. Indeed, it seems clear that ageism is now a State sponsored prejudice. Violent, feral youths who are caught assaulting elderly law-abiding citizens are likely to be 'punished' with a fistful of vouchers entitling them to a handful of free CDs (the lyrics of which may well encourage more violence), but honest, elderly citizens who, cannot afford to pay their council tax bill will end up in prison.

When doctors are owned by the Government then the Government's priorities take over. And so the elderly, who are regarded as an expensive burden, are considered expendable.

Taken from Vernon Coleman's book Why and How Doctors and Nurses kill more people than Cancer.

READ MORE JAN 6TH NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Jan 6th Files

ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

Did NATO Just Blow-up Russia’s Nordstream Pipelines?

Yesterday, the world woke up to truly horrific news – both Nordstream 1 and 2 pipelines were leaking gas into the Baltic Sea after what looks like a deliberate act of sabotage. While the usual western media oracles quickly began blaming Moscow for blowing up its most famous energy infrastructure projects, US news anchor Tucker Carlson suggested that it might be the United States, and not Russia, who was actually responsible for the dual explosions which threaten to further devastate Europe's energy supplies this winter, along with causing millions of cubic meters of methane to leak into the Earth's atmosphere. For voicing his dissenting opinion and analysis on this issue, Carlson was attacked by leading US media outlets, led by the Washington Post. 

However, the facts are pretty clear: both Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland are both on record promising to 'end the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.' In addition, other high-level US agents are publicly gloating about the terrorist attack on social media.

Anne Applebaum's husband, an EU member of parliament who has close ties to the Biden Admin, thanks the U.S. for sabotaging the pipeline. https://t.co/HG0QUI7fRw

— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.substack.com (@JordanSchachtel) September 27, 2022

Who benefits from this act of destruction? Certainly not Russia. 

Fox News host Tucker Carlson reacts to the possibility of US-led sabotage operation to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines. This stands as the most dangerous provocation yet in Washington and London's proxy war against Russia. Watch: 

READ MORE UKRAINE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Ukraine Files

ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

Get Clive de Carle'sNatural Health essentials of the finest quality, including vitamin & mineral supplementshere.

Crimea: ‘Donbass Republics Joining Russia Marks a ‘Point of No Return’

Crimean celebration (2019)

Well, it seems the results are now in: the leaders of the Lugansk and Kherson regions have officially petitioned President Vladimir Putin to be accepted into the Russian Federation. This move follows successful referendums on joining Russia, with the overwhelming majority in favor of the historic move.

In a video address published on Wednesday, LPR head Leonid Pasechnik said his republic's citizens have not received any support from other countries, even though they have been continuously bombarded by the NATO-backed regime in Kiev for over eight years.

Vladimir Saldo, leader of the Kherson region, wrote to Putin asking that his territory to be accepted into the Russian Federation, stating that the people of Kherson have expressed their desire to "reunite with Russia," a nation which has "always lived in their hearts."

While Ukrainian comedian and President Volodymyr Zelensky insists the votes will change nothing, history and demographics are not on his side.

As Crimea can attest to, there is little that either Kiev or its backers in the West can do now to stop these regions becoming 'former Ukrainian territories.'  The wheels of history are turning as we speak…

RT International reports…

Russia will soon transition from conducting a "special military operation" to a de-facto anti-terrorist operation to defend its own territory, the head of the Republic of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, said on Monday. Anticipating the results of the vote in Donbass republics Kherson and Zaporozhye, Aksyonov said this would lead to greater clarity and determination.

The People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as the two Ukrainian regions mostly under control of Russian and allied forces, have been voting since Friday on the question of joining Russia – much as Crimea did in March 2014, following the US-backed coup in Kiev.

Aksyonov noted that the Crimean vote was "held according to all international laws without a single flaw, but practically no one recognized it," adding that this was no time to be distracted with questions of "legal purity." 

"Soon we will pass a certain point of no return. A new status for the liberated territories will put an end to uncertainty," the Crimean governor said. "They will become full-fledged subjects of the Russian Federation, and we will de facto stop conducting a special military operation and start a counter-terrorist operation on our own territory."

The government in Kiev maintains that the vote will change nothing, and President Vladimir Zelensky has vowed to continue the war until the "liberation" of all "occupied territories" – including Crimea – with Western help.

US President Joe Biden on Friday denounced the vote as a "sham" referendum intended to "annex parts of Ukraine by force in flagrant violation of international law," and said Washington and its allies would impose "severe economic costs" on Russia in retaliation.

Aksyonov was elected prime minister of Crimea in late February 2014, just days after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich was violently overthrown by US-backed militants. He oversaw the referendum in which the vast majority of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Aksyonov's own son was among the 300,000 Russian reservists called up last week by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, citing Kiev's failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev's main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and "create powerful armed forces."

In February 2022, the Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states and demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.

READ MORE UKRAINE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Ukraine Files

ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

Get Clive de Carle'sNatural Health essentials of the finest quality, including vitamin & mineral supplementshere.

FDA and NIH Expert Warns Young Healthy People Not to Get COVID Booster: ‘There’s No Clear Evidence of Benefit Versus Risk’

In countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the law clearly states that people must be afforded informed consent before they are given pharmaceutical products or medical treatments. This is especially the case when those products or treatments are experimental, as is the case with the mRNA COVID-19 gene therapy 'vaccine' injection. However, these same governments, along with corrupt drug regulators – have been running roughshod over these once sacrosanct laws designed to protect innocent people by prohibiting misleading and coercive medical procedures.

We're three years into the so-called 'global pandemic' and governments and pharmaceutical giants are still pushing new rounds of COVID booster jabs. But as the facts and data of adverse reactions and deaths following the experimental jabs continues to roll in, some public health officials are beginning to get worried about their own liability in this historic debacle.

Here's one top FDA and NIH expert who is choosing his words carefully about whether children should be lining up for another round of experimental gene therapy…

Paul Sacca from The Blaze writes…

A top vaccine expert is advising that healthy young people should not get the latest COVID-19 booster shot because "there's not clear evidence of benefit."

Paul Offit is the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, a member of National Institutes of Health (NIH) working group on vaccines, and a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). Previously, Offit was a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Offit is also one of the few vaccine experts voicing caution regarding the new COVID boosters.

On Aug. 31, the FDA granted emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of COVID-19 boosters from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. The bivalent version of the previous vaccines are for use as a single booster dose at least two months following primary or booster vaccination. Moderna's mRNA booster shots are approved by the FDA for individuals 18 years of age or older, and the Pfizer-BioNTech version is authorized for those 12 or older.

However, Offit is advising healthy young people to skip the new booster shot.

Get Clive de Carle'sNatural Health essentials of the finest quality, including vitamin & mineral supplementshere.
During an appearance on CNN earlier this month, Offit said that those over 65, the immuno-compromised, and anyone with serious chronic health ailments could benefit from the boosters.

He was concerned that government health agencies were going to try to oversell the booster to everyone.

"What I fear is that they're going to say everybody should get it when in fact, the healthy young person really is unlikely to benefit from the booster dose, and so I hope they targeted more specifically, to those really who are most likely to benefit from this additional dose," he said during the CNN interview.

The CNN anchor was perplexed that the health official didn't recommend everyone get the new jab.

She asked the vaccine expert, "Why not get it? Right? If it does give you even if it's a smaller benefit, is there any reason not to get the booster?"

Offit replied, "I think that when you're asking people to get a vaccine, I think there has to be clear evidence of benefit, and we're not going to have clinical studies before this launches."

Moderna has begun human trials on the booster shots, and Pfizer is expected to begin theirs this month. Experts believe that trials likely wouldn't be completed until the spring.

"But you'd like to have at least human data people you know, getting this vaccine, you see a clear and dramatic increase in neutralizing antibodies, and then at least you have a correlate of protection against BA.4 and BA.5," he continued.

"You're asking people to get a new product for which there's no data," Offit also told CNN. "Mice data are not adequate to launch 100-plus-billion-dose effort."

The booster shot was authorized by the FDA despite not having been tested on humans. Pfizer's preliminary findings were based on tests on eight mice. The FDA based the EUA authorization on the testing of mice, data from current COVID-19 vaccines, and earlier iterations of boosters.

"Because if you don't have that, if there's not clear evidence of benefit, then it's not fair I think to ask people to take a risk no matter how small," Offit declared. "The benefit should be clear."

Dr. Paul Offit fears CDC will recommend new Covid boosters for all when "a healthy young person is unlikely to benefit …"

After CNN pushback: "If there's not clear evidence of benefit, it's not fair to ask ppl to take a risk, no matter how small. The benefit should be clear." pic.twitter.com/cBf3RkopJj

— Scott Morefield (@SKMorefield) September 1, 2022

On Sept. 21, Offit wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled: "CDC Oversells the 'Bivalent' Covid Shot."

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone over 12 receive a 'bivalent' COVID-19 vaccine as a booster dose," he wrote. "But only a select group are likely to benefit, and the evidence to date doesn't support the view that a bivalent vaccine containing omicron or its subvariants is better than the monovalent vaccine. The CDC risks eroding the public's trust by overselling the new shot."

Americans are not rushing to get the latest booster shot.

According to CDC data released on Thursday, an estimated 4.4 million Americans received the new booster. That figure represents approximately 1.5% of people in the U.S. who are eligible to receive the injection.

READ MORE VACCINE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Vaccine Files

ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE

FBI Whistleblower: ‘The Agency is Bias Against Conservatives’

In this episode of the Dan Bongino Show, FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin confirms that the agency is pursuing suspects based on their political affiliations, and is openly bias in pursuing Conservatives, regularly bring federal charges for simple misdemeanors like trespassing at the Capitol – all the while being completely disinterested in going after the numerous ranks of violent radical leftist actors like Antifa despite ample proof of their politically-motivated felony crimes. Watch: 

Watch the Dan Bongino Show here:
https://rumble.com/c/Bongino

READ MORE JAN 6TH NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Jan 6th Files

ALSO JOIN OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM HERE