Epidemiologists & institutions of medicine are happy to bend facts to suit political agendas.

As I've long argued, green claims that climate change is making diseases worse are not supported by the facts.

@TheLancet is a campaigning organisation.

https://www.thegwpf.org/we-are-winning-the-war-on-climate-related-disease/

Scientists and scientific institutions have blurred the lines between politics and science at the expense of democracy and science.

The result is bad politics and bad science.

Most of this has been obvious for most of this century.

There is nothing complicated about it. All anyone needed to do was to compare claims against observations.

Here, for instance is a blog post of mine from 2009.

Facts do not matter to global health agencies and NGOs.

Seriously *facts* are *not* important to them.

They are *political*.

(The table from the web page is missing, I'll try to find it...) http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/11/dead-babies-conscripts-in-the-climate-war.html

Here is the table in raw stats, that the WHO produced in 2002 (I've copied it to a spreadsheet and taken a screenshot).

This is what happens when you normalise all the stats relative to climate change...

And finally...

That "climate change" risk of mortality was in fact risks of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhoea. And it was a modelled estimate of risks from the year 2000.

As the new data shows, that risk has fallen substantially over the past 20 years.

In other words, the WHO's claims were bullshit in 2002, they were bullshit in 2011, and their claims, and the Lancet's claims are bullshit now.

Two decades of bullshit has prompted precisely *zero* reflection from institutional science.

This has been my main claim over the past 13 years.

There's a prima facie case, right there, that what global agencies and institutional science says is driven not by facts, objectivity and science, but by bare naked ideology.

They will rant, and they will rave. They will say I am not qualified.

Indeed I am not. I put those tables together when I was a lowly undergrad student. In my first year.

It's that simple.

I have had no response. Instead, UN agencies have blocked me.

You do not need to be "qualified" to examine their claims.

You do need to be *qualified" to defend them.

They cannot defend their claims. They cannot qualify their claims.

I *always* ask them to...

Here is my question to Lancet editor, @richardhorton1

Horton did not reply. There is never a reply. Because these organisations and agencies know that it is bullshit. And to reply means to admit that it is bullshit.

Instead, they smear and double down on their fear mongering.

You would think, wouldn't you, that replying to an "unqualified" simpleton with the facts would be simple.

But it turns out it's too difficult for global agencies and editors of world-class scientific journals to lower themselves.

Remember. This is compiled from *their* figures. And things have not got worse.

*This* is what they claim represents "the biggest problem facing mankind" -- a global, existential threat, in the face of which civilisation and all life on Earth hangs in the balance.

All they hear when you point it out is this:

"There is no such thing as climate change. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas."

It bears no resemblance to the argument I made.

I therefore doubt very much the good faith of the global agencies and scientific institutions that claim to champion climate "science".

I have seen no interest in the facts from them.

The new report on the Lancet's claims completes the case.

And in these circumstances, in which the editor of the Lancet has been caught using the #Covid_19 crisis for political ends, it's time to review the status of these organisations.

https://www.thegwpf.org/we-are-winning-the-war-on-climate-related-disease/