On July 14, the UN’s Adaptation Committee put fund managers, negotiators, and development bankers on a video call to work through a problem that clearly has them rattled. The money is drying up.
The Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the Adaptation Fund all sent people to explain how developing countries can tap them for cash. What they mostly did was ask for more. The reason they are running short, though, is news that ought to please anyone who pays U.S. taxes. In February 2025, the United States rescinded roughly $4 billion in outstanding pledges to the Green Climate Fund. We were the first country to do it. This spring, the United Kingdom followed, halving its pledge from £1.6 billion to about £815 million.
The people on the call treated this as a crisis. For anyone who works for a living and pays the bills, it looks more like a rescue.
It’s worth being clear about what these funds are. They hand out grants, not loans. Hansol Park of the Green Climate Fund said about 80% of its public-sector adaptation money is grant based, and the Adaptation Fund gives grants exclusively. Grant means gift — no repayment, no return, nothing back. When Washington pledged $4 billion, it was pledging to give $4 billion away and call it climate policy.
Where does the money go? The funds prefer to answer that in their own vocabulary. Ask what they finance, and you get “readiness,” “institutional capacity,” “capacity building,” “accreditation support,” “project preparation,” and “locally led adaptation.” Some of it does buy physical things, water systems and farms and flood defenses. A good deal of it, though, pays to build and staff the offices that write the grant applications in the first place.
The Green Climate Fund has placed outside experts inside developing-country governments, with more on the way. It runs multi-year “readiness” programs to prop up national agencies, with eight approved and 93 countries waiting in line. Over at the Adaptation Fund, staff run proposal-writing workshops and report that the workshops produce stronger proposals, which tells you the process is complicated enough to need a training seminar just to fill out the forms. Roxanne Valentine-Donegan of the Development Bank of Jamaica, one of the few speakers who had actually tried to pull money through the system, said getting it is “genuinely difficult,” slowed by shifting requirements and document-heavy applications.
So the recipients themselves say the system is too slow, too technical, and too expensive to navigate. And the answer on offer is not less paperwork; it is more staff and more workshops to process the paperwork. That is how bureaucracies grow. Every new hurdle becomes the reason to hire someone to help you clear it.
“Institutional capacity” is the polite expression that makes reference to the permanent layer of coordinators, accredited entities, and consultants standing between a donor’s check and an actual project on the ground. The Adaptation Fund alone works through roughly 62 accredited entities. The NDC Partnership, which helps developing countries navigate climate finance, says it has received more than 7,000 requests for support since 2016. Yet after nearly a decade and tens of billions of dollars, the people running this system are still saying they need more funding, more staff, and more capacity. The bureaucracy never seems to reach the point where it decides it has enough.
The Adaptation Fund reported an active pipeline worth about $1.9 billion with an appetite that seems to have no ceiling.
Adaptation Fund specialist Alyssa Gomes said flatly, “We do need more finance.” The Green Climate Fund talked up a board decision that could unlock roughly $4 billion in new programming capacity. No number is ever sufficient, because the demand is set by the funds themselves, not by any budget a taxpayer ever approved.
No number is ever sufficient, because the demand is set by the funds themselves, not by any budget a taxpayer ever approved.
The dialogue ended the way these things invariably do, with appeals for donors to give more, at a faster pace, with fewer strings attached. The honest answer from the American side is already on the record. We are keeping the $4 billion.
Melanie Collette is a CFACT Policy Analyst. She comes to CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow) with a background in environmental/energy policy work, especially in combatting the offshore wind turbine groups and green organizations in their plans for northeast construction of wind farms up and down the Atlantic coast. As a policy analyst for CFACT and host of the podcast How Money Works with Melanie Collette, she’s made it her mission to speak out against harmful or inadequate social and public policy issues, simplify economics and energy issues, and empower others with practical financial wisdom. Before stepping into the national spotlight, Melanie spent over 24 years in education, with 12 of those years dedicated to teaching business and technology. Her background as a former educator and current Cape May County Commissioner in New Jersey speaks to her deep commitment to serving her community. Beyond her local leadership roles, she’s also a former Vice Chair of the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women and now serves as Vice Chair of the Cape May County GOP. When she’s not analyzing policy or sharing money tips, Melanie is a regular face on television, known for her sharp, thought-provoking commentary on today’s hottest issues. With more than 400 on-screen appearances—and adding 3 to 5 new segments weekly—her voice has become a trusted resource on the intersections of media, education, and policy. Melanie’s public policy work and her passion for financial literacy has made her a sought-after speaker nationwide. Whether delivering keynote addresses or joining panel discussions, she inspires audiences with her unique blend of experience, insight, and unwavering dedication to empowering others.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Green-Climate-Fund-Logo.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2026-08-13 12:32:072026-08-13 12:34:44The Green Climate Fund ran short of other people’s money
A former AI industry executive warned me this month: “Massive culture shock is coming.” He did not mean job losses or new regulations. He meant a collision between what artificial intelligence may soon be able to do and what people believe about themselves.
That warning came to mind as I read what the architects of artificial intelligence are now saying publicly. They are no longer talking about better software or faster computers. They are describing a new age for civilization itself.
Consider three of the most influential AI voices.
Demis Hassabis, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who leads Google DeepMind, told Fortune that humanity stands on the edge of a “golden era of discovery” and “radical abundance,” with AI curing major diseases, solving the energy crisis, and letting humanity “travel the stars and explore the galaxy.”
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, wrote in his essay “The Intelligence Age” that the coming years would bring “massive prosperity,” with “fixing the climate, establishing a space colony, and the discovery of all of physics” becoming ordinary.
Dario Amodei, co-founder and chief executive of Anthropic, describes a “country of geniuses in a data center” — AI systems carrying the combined brainpower of 50 million Nobel laureates — that he says could remake the world within a few years, for good or ill.
These are not science fiction writers speculating about a distant century. They lead organizations building the world’s most powerful AI systems, and their predictions — right or wrong — are already shaping the future.
That alone should get our attention. But amid the excitement about what artificial intelligence may soon accomplish, a more fundamental question receives little consideration: What will all this mean for being human?
First, Christians should resist both panic and hype.
The acceleration in AI capabilities is real. This week, scientists at Stanford and the Arc Institute used an AI model to design new viral genomes from scratch, and 16 proved viable, infecting and killing bacteria. It is a concrete sign AI is moving from analyzing biology to designing it, with real promise and real risk. Johns Hopkins biosecurity researchers warned that the ability to compose viral genomes with AI “now exists,” while “the governance to safely steer it does not.”
But forecasts of “artificial general intelligence” (AGI) arriving in 2028, 2029, or 2030 remain forecasts. A self-sustaining intelligence explosion has not occurred. Human beings set objectives, validate results, supply enormous computing resources, and decide what the machines are supposed to do.
So, three things can be true simultaneously: The acceleration is real. The timetable is uncertain. And the rhetoric is racing ahead of both.
That rhetoric deserves particular scrutiny — and it is close to what my executive friend meant by culture shock.
When AI leaders speak of a golden era, a renaissance, or a country of geniuses that could remake the world within years, they have moved beyond engineering specifications. They are describing a destination — and doing so in language that sounds less like technological progress and more like human deliverance.
The storyline is difficult to miss. Humanity suffers disease, scarcity, and short lives. Artificial intelligence supplies greater intelligence, which accelerates medicine and discovery. Old limitations fall away. Abundance follows. A new civilization emerges.
Curing cancer is good. Christians can welcome much in that vision. But technology crosses an important line when it moves from promising better tools to offering a vision of human destiny.
That is where Christians must offer a different account.
The technological diagnosis of our predicament focuses on limitation: we do not know enough, produce enough, live long enough, or possess enough intelligence to solve our problems.
Christianity gives a far less flattering diagnosis. Our fundamental problem is not insufficient computing power. It is sin. The deepest human crisis is not ignorance but alienation from our Creator. No increase in intelligence, however extraordinary, can repair that breach.
Intelligence is not righteousness. Knowledge is not wisdom. Abundance is not redemption. Longevity is not eternal life. And artificial intelligence, regardless of how powerful it becomes, cannot change the human heart.
There is another danger as machines grow more capable. We may begin measuring ourselves by the standards of the machines we created.
If an AI system writes faster than we do, remembers more than we do, analyzes more information than we can, and eventually outperforms many highly educated professionals, where does that leave human worth?
The Christian answer is indispensable precisely because it refuses the premise.
Human dignity has never depended on IQ, productivity, memory, or economic usefulness. Scripture locates it beyond any machine’s reach: when the Lord sent Samuel to anoint Israel’s next king, He said, “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7, ESV). That worth comes from the Creator, not from our capabilities.
Our worth is bestowed, not computed.
That means the brilliant scientist, the disabled child, the elderly patient, the unborn baby, and the productive executive possess the same fundamental human dignity before God. Each bears a dignity no benchmark can measure, and no machine can acquire by growing more capable.
This is why the debate over AI cannot be left exclusively to Silicon Valley.
Hassabis, Altman, Amodei, and their colleagues are extraordinarily accomplished people. They may prove correct about much of the change they foresee. But technical expertise does not confer authority to define human purpose.
If artificial intelligence reshapes work, education, medicine, relationships, and warfare, then choices made in a handful of laboratories and corporations will shape how society understands freedom, responsibility, dignity, and personhood.
Those questions belong to families, churches, citizens, and governments — not engineers or corporate boards — because they concern not what our machines can do, but what civilization we intend to become.
Building artificial intelligence may be an engineering problem. Deciding what human beings are for is not.
Christians have no reason to retreat from the AI revolution. We should welcome technologies that heal disease, reduce suffering, expand knowledge, and steward creation responsibly. But we must also refuse to confuse progress with salvation.
For all AI may accomplish, the decisive contest of this new era may have little to do with which laboratory reaches AGI first. It may be whether a civilization dazzled by artificial intelligence remembers what a human being is.
“It is he who made us, and we are his” (Psalm 100:3, ESV). That truth cannot be revised by an algorithm, surpassed by a benchmark, or patented by a laboratory.
Artificial intelligence may help write the next chapter of human history. It will never become history’s author — and it will never be history’s Lord.
That is the truth Christians must carry into the culture shock now coming.
Robert Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 15 books. His latest, “The Final Algorithm,” releases in July 2026.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/When-AI-Architects-Promise-a-New-Age.jpg336640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2026-08-12 12:12:442026-08-12 12:15:11When AI’s Architects Promise a New Age
Foreign donors have poured over $130 million into U.S.-based climate activist nonprofits, according to a new database tracking over $5 billion in foreign funding.
“Our database makes it clear foreign cash is bankrolling much of the extremist climate activist movement in America,” Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told the Daily Signal. “Radical activist groups dedicated to undermining American energy dominance, like Energy Foundation China, Sierra Club, and League of Conservation Voters, are recipients of vast sums of foreign money.”
While the law prohibits foreign donations to political candidates, foreign donors can legally contribute to U.S. groups organized as tax-exempt entities under the IRS code. Many foreign foundations already disclose their funding to U.S.-based groups, but Americans for Public Trust claims that disclosure is inadequate.
The database, available at FollowForeignMoney.org, presents information from the annual reports of foreign foundations, involving 523 groups and 12,094 records. Most of the U.S. recipients of foreign funds advocate for causes on the Left. Americans for Public Trust filtered out traditional charitable causes, such as children’s hospitals and the Meals on Wheels Program, to focus on activism. It currently includes funding sources from Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.
Foreign Funds for Climate Activism
The database shows more than $130 million in foreign funding going to climate activist groups based in the United States.
The Sierra Club, one of America’s oldest and largest environmental groups, began as a conservation-minded organization but has increasingly championed restrictions on traditional forms of energy, particularly fossil fuels. The Sierra Club received $50,000 from the Switzerland-based Berger Action Fund in 2014. It also received $1.8 million from the Swiss-based Wyss Foundation from 2004 to 2024. Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss citizen who now lives in the U.S., set up both foundations. The Sierra Club also received $600,000 from the Swiss-based Oak Foundation in 2009.
Environment America, another left-leaning climate activist nonprofit, received $1 million from the Oak Foundation in 2009. The foundation awarded the grant “to persuade the U.S. Congress and the president to pass a national cap on global warming pollution with a near-term cap of 35% by 2020 and long-term reductions of at least 80% by 2050.”
This grant appears to match the activist campaign supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, which failed in the Senate.
The League of Conservation Voters, another influential climate activist group, also received $28 million from Berger Action Fund from 2016 to 2024, according to the database. The league’s PAC, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, received $400,050 from the Oak Foundation in 2010 and $3.2 million from the Wyss Foundation from 2002 to 2024.
Energy Foundation China, a U.S.-based nonprofit that funds climate change projects and focuses on China, received $85 million from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, based in the United Kingdom, from 2014 to 2024. The foundation received $14.4 million from the Oak Foundation between 2012 and 2023. It received $4 million from the U.K.-based Quadrature Climate Foundation in 2022.
A Defense of Climate Activism
Environment America Executive Director Lisa Frank defended climate activism when reached for comment.
“America is blessed with abundant solar and wind power that shows up for free and doesn’t pollute,” she told the Daily Signal. “On the other hand, coal, oil and gas dirty our air and water, harm our health and worsen climate change. As Americans suffer from heat waves, fires, and floods, it’s clear we need to act on climate.”
Criticism
Foreign funding does not necessarily change the priorities or goals of climate activist groups. Even so, it may raise questions about the forces assisting the climate activist movement.
Critics claim that China benefits from climate activism in the U.S., and have pointed to ties between climate groups and Chinese entities. Climate activists say they work with China because China emits a large percentage of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The conservative-leaning American Lands Council praised the Americans for Public Trust database.
“Americans for Public Trust has done a fantastic public service by amassing this database of foreign contributions to nonprofit groups,” American Lands Council Chairman Myron Ebell told the Daily Signal. “Climate and environmental groups have done tremendous damage to the economy by promoting policies that raise the price of energy.”
“This new database from Americans for Public Trust exposes what many of us have been warning about for years … namely, billions in foreign cash flooding U.S. nonprofits through gaping loopholes,” Craig Rucker, president of the free-market group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, told the Daily Signal.
“These groups work overtime to kneecap U.S. oil, gas, and reliable energy while foreign adversaries and competitors smile,” Rucker said. “Americans deserve to know who’s really paying for the green agenda.”
Sutherland, the leader behind the database, called for Congress to prevent foreign funding for American nonprofits.
“We must close the loopholes that allow this money to flow into our system and influence U.S. policy and politics,” she said.
The Daily Signal reached out to Energy Foundation China, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council for comment, but did not receive responses by publication time.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s words are coming back to haunt him after resurfaced comments from a 2022 interview with CNN showed a complete 180 on his attitude toward testifying before Congress. “I am very happy to testify before any congressional oversight committee,” Fauci told CNN in 2022.
Fauci, under his lawyers’ guidance, did not answer a single question from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., or others on the committee about his COVID-19 pandemic response or gain-of-function research, instead invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times. “I have nothing to hide. I can explain and validate everything that I’ve done… I’m going to do what I need to do, and that is cooperate fully, because we have nothing to hide at all,” he added in the CNN interview roughly four years ago.
Fauci argued during Wednesday’s hearing that Paul, who recently released more than 1,000 pages of his personal diary entries, has an “obvious obsession” with pushing for his prosecution. He said the diary release was designed to “get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, behind bars, unquote.”
“Although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government, and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions,” Fauci told the Senate committee before invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times.
Meanwhile, Rand Paul, who has spearheaded the investigation of Fauci, is looking to challenge whether the COVID leader was legally justified in pleading the Fifth Amendment, given that he is a recipient of a presidential pardon. “The legal question is, if you’re pardoned, can you really claim the Fifth?” he said on “The Will Cain Show” on Wednesday. “The Fifth Amendment is to claim immunity from self-incrimination. But if you’ve already been given immunity, you can’t self-incriminate unless you lie.”
Paul is seeking a vote to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after the former public health official pleaded the Fifth 111 times at Wednesday’s contentious congressional hearing.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast-2659476_640.jpg360640Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TVhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV2026-08-12 03:43:512026-08-12 03:57:00Fauci Knew the Dangers
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Monday aimed at increasing confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule through greater flexibility for families, according to a fact sheet obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Trump’s recommendations to align the childhood vaccination schedule with “gold standard science” involves three policies. White House officials told the DCNF the new executive order builds on the prior ones in large part because Trump himself will educate the public from the bully pulpit about the changes.
First, the order better educates states to harmonize their policies with a Health and Human Services (HHS) study finding that America’s 18-disease childhood vaccination schedule is more crowded than those in other high income nations in Europe and Asia. The order grants families greater allowance to space out childhood vaccines into separate medical visits and to separate the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine into three single-disease shots.
Second, the order calls on the HHS Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines — first created by a 1986 law but fallen into neglect in 1999 — to generate a report in 90 days on how to implement the EO, including ways the commercial sector can produce individual MMR shots and recommend research studies on how to optimally space out shots. The task force includes the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Third, the EO directs the Department of Justice to investigate where states are in violation of parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and religious and medical exemptions.
Other high income countries implement vaccine mandates but nevertheless do not enjoy high vaccination rates.
SCOOP: Trump To Sign Executive Order Calling For More Vaccine Flexibility And Research
Trump will use the bully pulpit to pivot to gold standard science on vaccines this afternoon, according to a fact sheet I obtained. https://t.co/XkGCqDGacP
“By signing this executive order the president is helping Americans who are asking questions, especially post COVID, about vaccine requirements, and opening up a dialogue to encourage public trust,” a White House official said. “We are still recommending the measles and the polio vaccine.”
“On this topic in particular there’s been a lot of media misinformation and misreporting,” said another White House official. “If you read the EO there is nothing not grounded in data and gold standard science. We’re taking an evidence-based approach, but a lot of the reporting is not evidence-based.”
Detailed polling conducted in October 2025 by Trump’s longtime pollster Tony Fabrizio found that 73% of voters expressed concern about childhood vaccine mandates, while a whopping 90% of voters expressed concern about the pharmaceutical industry’s corrupting influence.
The Wall Street Journal reported on July 27 that Trump was turning up the heat on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to do more on vaccines.
HHS first reported in a metaanalysis last year that America’s chockablock vaccination schedule was out of step with many other wealthy countries and recommended 11 critical vaccines for which broad international consensus exists.
In December 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing his health department to align U.S. core childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer, developed countries.
And in May, President Trump signed an Executive Order realigning United States core childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer, developed countries.
Internal documents from the maker of Tylenol and from the FDA show evidence was accumulating about a potential link between exposure to the drug in utero and neurological damage, the DCNF reported. Other studies have pointed to exposure to the drug in early childhood as problematic.
A 2017 survey shows that 64% of families administer Tylenol to treat side effects from childhood vaccines.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-To-Sign-Executive-Order-Calling-For-More-Vaccine-Flexibility.jpg339640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2026-08-10 14:53:152026-08-10 14:55:53EXCLUSIVE: Trump To Sign Executive Order Calling For More Vaccine Flexibility And Research
I know, I had said that there would only be Part 1 and Part 2…
But as I went along I thought of something that warrants an additional write-up. It’s this: one of the primary deceptions used by Dr Fauci and his minions, is to make technical references that he knows that very few citizens really understand.
One of the most frequent deceptions used is to cite statistics. For example, regarding medical issues, the decision as to whether or not a treatment is desirable comes down to two issues: Effectiveness and Safety. (After these, other matters might then come into play, e.g., cost, availability, etc.)
A “treatment” could be a vaccine, mechanical therapy (radiation), surgery, prescription medication, supplements, dietary changes, lifestyle changes, etc.
But let’s just think about COVID-19. Dr. Fauci (and other healthcare “experts”) had these treatments to evaluate: vaccine, prescription medication, supplements, dietary changes, lifestyle changes, etc
Accurately Explaining Effectiveness</h4
How Dr. Fauci and his allies (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) portray effectiveness (of drugs, vaccines, etc.) to the public was deceptive. The “effectiveness” that was almost always shown was relative risk.
A more meaningful number would have been to show absolute risk. Here are two independent citations where others have (so far unsuccessfully) made a case for the same thing:
Example 1:This is the position stated in an important FDA advisory publication. A key conclusion (see page 60) was that the public is: “unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”
Since statistics are over most people’s heads, I’ll try to explain the difference in layperson terms. I’ll use COVID-19 vaccines as a telling example…
Here are three tables based on two studies: here and here. (If you’d like further elaboration, here is an MD’s good discussion about those two studies.)
The first table shows the relative risk reduction (relative effectiveness) of several popular COVID-19 vaccines:
Most people would say that these look like good numbers — and the ones above 90% are VERY good. That’s exactly what Dr. Fauci, etc. want us to think… Now let’s fill out the next column: absolute risk reduction (absolute effectiveness) …
Whoa! The absolute effectiveness numbers are radically different — and MUCH less! What does this mean in the real world?
A third variable might be the easiest to understand: how many people need to be treated (injected) to prevent ONE case of COVID-19?
This is called NNT (Number Needed to Treat = 1/ARR). Here are two studies (here and here) that delve into the merit of using NNT. The table below shows what NNT is for the same COVID-19 injections:
NOTE: The exact numbers here may be slightly different due to several variables, and are not important. What is significant here is to see the extraordinary differences between Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.
NNT Observation —
Let’s look at a real-world example… If citizens realized that roughly one hundred people had to be injected before ONE case of COVID-19 was prevented, how many people would have said:
“I’m willing to risk the known potentially serious side-effects of these injections, plus accept the fact that zero long-term studies have been completed — all hoping that I’ll hit the jackpot and be the lucky one in 100± people who is prevented from getting COVID-19”?
An Even Better Analysis —
Some very smart people said let’s take the NNT data one step further — and add the treatment COST to it! In other words, if two treatments have the same NNT, but one costs 10 times the other, shouldn’t we factor that in? Look at this fabulous COVID-19 table:
Compare two popular COVID-19 early oral treatment competitors: Ivermectinand Paxlovid. To get the same end result (save one life from COVID-19) we can spend $26 for Ivermectin or $881,260 for Paxlovid!
Note also that cost and impacts of side effects are NOT taken into account here. The side-effects for taking Ivermectin are very low, while the potential side-effects for Paxlovid are rather high. In other words, the cost difference between Ivermectin and Paxlovid is likely MUCH more than what is shown in this table!
The Bottom Line — Part 3
Dr. Science (Fauci) — and his expert allies — KNEW all this information.
As such, they should have prominently shown the public BOTH Relative and Absolute numbers, as well as NNT. This is not some academic matter, as it has SUBSTANTIAL bearing on assuring that Americans are able to make an informedchoice when they agree to an injection or to take a drug.
Without these facts, citizens are not only severely handicapped, but are almost totally incapable of making an appropriate decision for themselves and their loved ones. Dr. Fauci could have fixed this, but chose not to.
PS — Here is an excellent two-minute video that explains the difference between Absolute and Relative Risk reduction…
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FAUCIS-FRAUD-covid-4948866_640.jpg360634John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-08-07 14:16:112026-08-07 14:34:42Critically Thinking about Dr. Fauci — Part 3
“The mainstream media and social media giants are imposing a totalitarian censorship to prevent public health advocates, like myself, from voicing concerns and from engaging in civil informed debate in the public square.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” — Potter Stewart, Dissenting to Ginsberg v. United States
“It happened. Therefore, it can happen again. It can happen everywhere.” — Primo Levi, Italian Jewish survivor of Auschwitz
“Indifference and the silence of people led to the Holocaust. To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all.” — Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor
:Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote that ‘A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.’ Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK Jr. exposes the decades of lies.” — Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate
The Daily World of November 8, 1975 carried a very interesting article entitled “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark” by Morris Zeitlin. The Daily World (newspaper of the Communist Party USA) was formerly known as The Daily Worker and was founded in 1924. The importance of this article lies in its blatant admission that regionalism, which is gradually becoming the accepted method of unelected governance in the United States (unelected councils and task forces, participatory democracy, public-private partnerships, etc.) is the form of government used in democratic socialist and communist countries.
Throughout the country from federal agencies down to local city and county boards, all of the decisions regarding C-19 were made by unelected heads of agencies which affected every American. Those choices were followed by state governors, city and county mayors, heads of police and fire departments, hospital administrators, etc. They all loved their totalitarian control and then the mandates! Get the clot shots!
Except of course for those Biden deemed exempt.
The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is a drug regulatory, drug safety watchdog agency. The FDA doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), is a government funded research organization. The NIH doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is an infectious and chronic disease, epidemiologic and analytic organization. The CDC doesn’t tell doctors how to treat patients.
A lot of these quasi-governmental agencies that people think are governmental are actually front groups for the pharmaceutical industry.
Not one of these federal agency leaders was elected, and not one of them ever treated a C-19 patient. Yet, every one of them told America what we could and could not do and then destroyed the ability of physicians to properly treat patients other than with their deadly protocols. Their goals were the money-making deadly inoculations for C-19.
When hospitals followed those protocols they collected beaucoup tax-payer dollars from the federal government, with the highest payments for patients who died. The following chart shows the monies each state received for each C-19 patient.
Remember that the PCR tests were not valid tests for COVID and the Nobel Peace Prize inventor, Kary Mullis, told us it was improperly used and would give far too many false positives.
Nor should we look to other unelected parties to tell us what to do, and that includes our local health departments who advocated mandates that are destructive not only to children, but to all citizens. And the latest is the euphemistically named Congressional bill H.R.550 (Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021) which paved the way for state and local health departments, as well as public and private health care providers, to share personal health data with the federal government. The bill has hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars allocated to the tracking system’s success. The bill passed it the House, but thankfully failed in the Senate.
The Wentworth Report stated, “In 2000, Dr. Fauci, who Dr. Joseph Mercola calls a sociopathic bureaucrat, met with Bill Gates, who asked to partner with the NIH in an agreement to vaccinate the entire population of the world with a battery of new vaccines. In 2009, this agreement was rebranded as ‘The Decade of Vaccines,’ the objective of which was to implement mandatory vaccinations for every adult and child on the planet by the year 2020. Link
“Gates calls what he does ‘philanthropy capitalism,’ the idea that you can use philanthropy to make money. He has a foundation where he shelters $89 billion in tax-free money. He continues to have absolute control over it. He uses that money to gain control of public health agencies in our country and the World Health Organization.”
Portions of the following info come from The Real Anthony Fauci movies. Copies of these two films are still available.
Willowbrook State School
In 1965, Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. visited Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York and was appalled at the situation and called it a snake pit, similar to the 1948 movie by the same name. The institution’s medical personnel were conducting US Army funded experiments on the children. These children had been abandoned by their parents in dilapidated institutions.
Children housed at Willowbrook were intentionally given hepatitis in an attempt to track the development of the viral infection. The study lasted for 14 years. It wasn’t until 1987 that Willowbrook was shut down.
One of the horrid experiments was the deliberate injection of Hepatitis during 1964. From 1958-1964 feces were taken from children who had Hepatitis, put in milkshakes and fed to newly admitted children for experimentation purposes.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments were conducted between 1932 and 1972. The Willowbrook experiments started in 1956.
The Nuremberg Codes were formulated in August of 1947, yet these experiments on Americans were never prosecuted under the Codes. The question remains, “Why not?”
Far worse has happened.
Fauci and AIDS
In the late 1980s, foster children in seven states were enrolled in experiments of HIV and AIDS drug trials. Fauci called them studies, but they were invasive experiments. Fauci arranged for the drug companies to get access to these experiments. Merck, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Glaxo Wellcome and others were involved.
The Wentworth Report stated, “AZT was a chemotherapy formulation that was so toxic it killed all the rats when they gave it to them. The inventor of AZT, Jerome Horwitz, felt that it was unsafe for any human use, so he didn’t even patent it …
“Very early on, the National Cancer Institute had found that when you put AZT in a culture of HIV, it killed the HIV, not surprisingly. It killed anything it touched. And so, Fauci partnered with the manufacturer of AZT. He guided that formulation through the regulatory process and tried to fast track it. He cheated terribly on the clinical trials.”
The same PCR tests used during COVID were used to determine positive AIDS in children. The tests were just as unreliable with AIDS as with C-19. Many of the children were not even HIV positive.
Fauci, together with the pharmaceutical companies, sponsored these AZT experiments. Many of the children died. In Hawthorn, New York there is a cemetery where these children are buried. Journalist Celia Farber, who is featured in The Real Anthony Fauci movies, tells of the burial site of at least 80 children, perhaps more, their bodies in metal caskets, many with more than one body per casket.
Farber commented, “Fauci’s reign has elements to totalitarian societies and it also has the theme of mafioso velvetiness to it.”
“…Dr. Fauci copied the choreographed script for winning remdesivir’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the worn rabbit-eared playbook that he developed during his early AIDS years, and then used repeatedly across his career to win approvals for deadly and ineffective drugs,” writes Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “Time and again, he has terminated clinical trials of his sweetheart drugs the moment they begin to reveal cataclysmic toxicity. He makes the absurd claim that his drug-du-jour had proven so miraculously effective that it would be unethical to deny it to the public, and then he strong-arms FDA to grant his approvals.”
Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor and President of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP.org) stated, “Most people cannot imagine that there are people, especially medical doctors, which Dr. Fauci is, who would disregard the humanity of people including children. There was horrific abuse and because it was government sponsored, together with pharmaceutical companies, they had free rein. New York State and New York City provided the children for the government experiments. New York Administration for Services’ documents confirmed there were 80 deaths and many others suffered serious harm.”
Reagan’s Injury Compensation Act
In 1986, Reagan signed into law a bill that gave compensation to children for drug exports and vaccine injuries. It was meant to make vaccines safer, but it gave virtual liability protection to vaccine manufacturers and health care providers who were providing vaccines.
Mary Holland, general counsel and President of Children’s Health Defense states, “The 1986 Act was created and signed into law by Reagan. It allegedly created a program for compensation of children who were injured by their vaccines or who died and they would get some level of compensation.”
Dr. Sherry Tenpenny said, “The 1986 Injury Compensation Act was a real game changer because all of the drug companies who were making vaccines were deciding that they were not going to do vaccines anymore unless they got liability protection because they were getting sued at every turn.”
Mary Holland said, “The blanket liability protection created a boon town, a gold rush. The sad reality is a whole new industry of highly profitable but recklessly developed vaccines was created, and it did not lead to compensation to children who are injured and it absolutely did not lead to safer vaccines.”
“That’s one of the tragedies that is across the board when it comes to public health. Because you see, when doctors join forces with government, they no longer comply with medicine’s mission which is the sacred oath to do no harm to the individual patient. They become agents of government and they do what they’re told,” added Vera Sharav.
This is exactly like the physicians who work for a corporation. They do what they’re told or they lose their jobs, and the corporation or group invariably gets their instructions from the CDC, NIH and FDA.
John D. Rockefeller
“In 1910, John D. Rockefeller took over medicine, particularly the medical schools. And they redirected medicine to be totally focused on pharmaceutical interventions and various surgical procedures, to make it a real business.
John D. Rockefeller was not just interested in oil, but in medicine, in education and in retaining his massive earnings via tax free foundations.
Britannica states, “He made possible the founding of the University of Chicago in 1892, and by the time of his death—from a heart attack in 1937, shortly before his 98th birthday—he had given it some $35 million. In association with his son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., he created major philanthropic institutions, including the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (renamed Rockefeller University) in New York City (1901), the General Education Board (1902), and the Rockefeller Foundation (1913). Rockefeller’s benefactions during his lifetime totaled more than $500 million.”
Vera Sharav’s insight on foundations is exact, “The very wealthy foundations were formed to eliminate their tax requirement. Foundations don’t have to pay taxes. So, they simply move their business under the flag of foundations and then they’re exempt from taxation and they gain huge control because they’re distributing money to all sorts of non-government agencies. They get to decide exactly who to give money to, what kind of policies to support. In the meantime, they’re shoveling in money for themselves.”
This is one of the tragedies of public health.
NIH Payments
Robert Kennedy Jr. tells us, “One of the secrets that they’ve tried to keep hidden at NIH are these direct payments from the pharmaceutical company not only to the agency, but to hundreds if not thousands of scientists and officials within those agencies for royalty payments for the drugs that that agency has partnered with the pharmaceutical company to develop and market.
“The agency has become a big marketing arm for Big Pharma. And they don’t want the American public to know that that is the ultimate object of this terrible devolution. And one of the big emblems of that devolution are the payments that are being made to Tony Fauci, to his deputies, to his scientists. We’ve made FOIA requests and inquiries and the NIH has stonewalled us.”
They’ve had hundreds of FOIA requests and are being sued over those requests, but as of yet, little has been forthcoming. This is an important portion of the last 25 minutes of the second Fauci video.
Dr. Pierre Kory says, “To call Fauci ‘America’s doctor’ is such a misnomer. He’s essentially a mafia don who runs all three agencies. He rules science and the practice of medicine.”
Vera Sharav calls Fauci, “a shyster, a man without scruples of any kind.”
Dr. Paul Marik says, “He should be charged with the crimes he’s responsible for which go back to the HIV era. He did some terrible experiments in Africa. He’s resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients.”
Global leaders have united in an urgent call for an international pandemic treaty to be headed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The loss of American sovereignty has been nibbled away at for decades, but this kind of treaty would eliminate American citizens’ freedoms to choose their own health care and would be forced to abide by the dictates of the WHO.
Vera Sharav was to give the following speech in Brussels but because of protestors, it was given in a local restaurant. She outlines the parallels of today with the German Holocaust of European Jewry.
She states exactly what we’re facing because she’s been through it before and quotes Primo Levy, Elie Wiesel and more while discussing the psychological weapons of fear and propaganda. Don’t miss it!
The vaccine program was betrayal.
Conclusion
Many consider Dr. Anthony Fauci a sociopathic murderer of the masses.
Joe Biden gave him a presidential pardon.
Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times in the Senate hearing.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FAUCI-I-AM-THE-SCIENCE.png359638Kelleigh Nelsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKelleigh Nelson2026-08-05 04:46:102026-08-05 04:59:40From, “I Am The Science” To ” I Plead The Fifth”
When it comes to assessing the responsibility that Dr. Fauci has on just America (he actually had a very negative impact on the entire world), it’s very difficult to get our heads around the horrific impact this one person has had. Read Part 1 to get a good start.
As I wrote there, I am pointing out four (4) MAJOR liabilities that don’t seem to be getting the proper attention they deserve. Here are two more biggies…
3 – Undermined Trust in Science
I have repeatedly pushed back when people say things like they object to “bad science.” Science is a process, and the process is effective — so there is no such thing as “bad” Science!
What laypeople are doing is conflating/confusing Science with scientists. They are NOT one and the same!
EVERY time I see and hear things like “bad science” and similar, it is ALWAYS bad scientists who are really the culprits. Nothing that happened in COVID-19 was due to “bad science.”Nothing. It was ALL due to bad scientists, whom Dr. Fauci seems obsessed with being the leader of.
So, another result of Dr. Fauci’s irresponsible COVID-19-related behavior is that millions of people had their trust in Science severely undermined. After all, Dr. Fauci did say that attacks on him are “attacks on Science.” He is arrogantly claiming that his utterances are synonymous with Science — which is beyond ludicrous. However, due to his authoritative position, it likely was taken at face value by tens of millions of trusting layperson Americans.
We live in an advanced society that is almost entirely attributable to Science. A primary distinction between the U.S. and third-world countries, is that we have successfully implemented thousands of scientific advancements into our daily life.
This is one of several subtle attacks on America. Our enemies know that if Americans distrust and then disavow Science, then our societal collapse will accelerate. Remember that our opponents are playing the long game…
—> There is a fine discussion of this by Ben Shapiro (start at 3:45).
Regretfully, Dr. Fauci’s misrepresentation and perversion of Science is not an outlier. As I have written before, almost all of U.S. K-12 students (50± million) are purposefully being fed second-rate “science”: the NGSS. For example, its authors have knowingly scrapped the traditional Scientific Method.
The impact of the NGSS on America is very much like the severe damage done by Dr. Fauci — yet I do not see anyone making this critical connection…
4 – No Accounting for the Co-Conspirators
As bad as Dr. Fauci’s advice was, it wouldn’t have amounted to a hill of beans if other so-called “science-based organizations” did not endorse it. I am talking about the AMA, CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, State Health Departments, our universities, etc.
This is very much like the tale of the emperor (Dr. Fauci) with no clothes. He can stupidly parade around nude all he wants, but it only becomes a problem when almost every supposedly competent healthcare or Science organization goes along with the charade.
These organizations have tens of thousands of scientists and medical professionals. Considering that Dr. Fauci wasn’t remotely engaged in actual Science regarding almost every aspect of COVID-19 policies (masks, vaccines, treatments, immunity, etc., etc.), why wasn’t there an official public outcry from many of them? From ONE of them?
The crickets from so-called prestigious U.S. universities is particularly telling. The fact is that essentially zero of the 4000± American “higher education” institutions spoke up about the reality that COVID-19 policies had little (if anything) to do with real Science. (See this AlterAI assessment.)
I understand that Dr. Fauci was motivated by fame and greed, but what about all these groups? If their main concern is to be politically correct, then they are absolutely NOT an institution of higher learning! Hopefully some of those weak-kneed organizations will be officially exposed and penalized.
It’s also extremely disturbing (and telling) that almost none of the many organizations that were complicit in advocating unscientific COVID-19 policies have yet to publicly acknowledge their grievous error.
For example, they now know that there are 40± scientific studies that have concluded that Ivermectin early treatment of COVID-19 is 62%± effective. They also know that there are 65± scientific studies that have concluded that Paxlovid early treatment of COVID-19 is 16%± effective!
For example, they now know that there are 71± scientific studies that have concluded that Remdesivir late treatment of COVID-19 is -4%± effective! Where is their public acknowledgment of these scientific realities?
What confidence do their actions during and after COVID give us that: 1) they know anything about real Science, or 2) they know the difference between political science and actual Science, or 3) they have our best health interest at heart, or 4) they have actually learned from their catastrophically bad response to COVID-19, so will do MUCH better in the future?
The Bottom Line – Part 2
Again, forget the business of where the COVID-19 virus started, etc., and let’s focus on the REALLY major harms caused by Dr. Fauci and others of his ilk. Watch this video of Dr. Scott Atlas (who was there) to see how most “top-level” people quickly and easily capitulated to Fauci’s unscientific leadership.
Is there really any difference when we ask “why didn’t more good people and quality leaders in Germany stand up to Hitler, early on?”
That said, I continue to assert that we MUST fix our K-12 Science education immediately. EVERY year we graduate 4± million students from U.S. high schools. These miseducated, non-critically thinking children will soon be VOTERS, parents, doctors, lawyers, scientists, legislators, etc.
Since their innate critical thinking skills have been purposefully squashed in K-12, they will be easy targets for pied-pipers like Dr. Fauci.
PS — If there is any remaining credibility to what Dr. Fauci says, consider that when interviewed by 60 Minutes a while back, he stated on the record:
“I am very happy to testify before any Congressional oversight committee. I have nothing to hide… I can explain everything I have done. I will cooperate fully, as we have nothing to hide, at all.”
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Critically-Thinking-about-Dr.-Fauci-2.jpg360640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-08-04 11:45:532026-08-04 11:47:16Critically Thinking about Dr. Fauci — Part 2
A hadith in which Muhammad prescribed camel urine as medicine continues to drive the practice in some Muslim communities, prompting more than a decade of WHO warnings against it as a transmission route for the deadly MERS-CoV virus that first emerged in 2012.
In 2012, a new coronavirus surfaced in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Within a few years, epidemiologists working on the outbreak had identified the animal reservoir: dromedary camels. They had also identified one specific human behavior that spread it from camel to person. It wasn’t petting camels at a market. It was drinking their urine.
That is not a coincidence of modern hygiene habits. It is a direct continuation of a medical instruction attributed to Muhammad himself, recorded in the two most authenticated hadith collections in Sunni Islam, and still cited today, by name, as the reason people keep doing it.
What the World Health Organization Actually Said
In June 2015, as a MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus) outbreak in South Korea killed five people and infected dozens more, the World Health Organization issued a public warning. As reported by U.S. News & World Report at the time, WHO advised people to “avoid drinking raw camel milk or camel urine,” and to steer clear of close contact with camels generally, particularly in markets, farms, and barns where the virus was known to circulate.
The U.S. News piece noted, almost in passing, why this warning was necessary in the first place: “some people in Muslim countries believe drinking camel urine will cure ailments.”
This was not WHO inventing an eccentric new hygiene rule. It was public health investigators tracing a real transmission pathway back to its source, and finding that the source was a religious practice.
The warning did not expire when the 2015 outbreak faded from headlines. It is still there. WHO’s current MERS-CoV fact sheet, last updated in December 2025, a full decade after the South Korea outbreak, repeats the same instruction almost word for word: individuals at greater risk of severe disease should avoid “handling or drinking raw camel milk or camel urine, or eating meat that has not been properly cooked.” MERS-CoV has by now been reported to WHO from 27 countries, with a case fatality ratio of roughly 37 percent among confirmed cases.
The Instruction Behind the Practice
The belief that camel urine, especially mixed with camel milk, has curative properties is not folk superstition floating free of any religious source. It is anchored directly in an authenticated hadith, appearing in nearly identical form in Sahih al-Bukhari (widely regarded as the single most authoritative hadith collection in Sunni Islam) and in Sahih Muslim, the second most authoritative.
Sahih al-Bukhari 233 (Book of Ablutions), narrated by Anas ibn Malik:
“Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 5686, filed under a chapter heading that leaves no ambiguity about the subject, “To treat with the urine of camels”:
“The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy.”
Sahih Muslim 1671a confirms the same event, with Muhammad specifying the animals as the camels of the sadaqa (charity/alms herd):
“Allah’s Messenger said to them: ‘If you so like, you may go to the camels of Sadaqa and drink their milk and urine.’ They did so and were all right.”
All three narrations agree on the essential fact: Muhammad personally ordered a group of sick people to drink camel urine as medicine, and it is presented as having worked. What follows in the hadith, the group’s subsequent murder of the shepherd, theft of the herd, and brutal punishment, is a separate legal episode about apostasy and banditry. It has nothing to do with the medical instruction itself, and conflating the two would blur what is actually being documented here: an authenticated prophetic recommendation to drink animal urine as a remedy.
Scholars Disagree on the Ruling, Not on the Event
It’s worth noting, in fairness, that Islamic jurisprudence is split on what this hadith means for camel urine’s ritual status. The Maliki and Hanbali schools generally hold that the urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat, including camels, is ritually pure and therefore permissible to consume. The Shafi’i and Hanafi schools take the opposite view, treating camel urine as impure, and read the hadith’s instruction as a case of necessity (darura), a specific emergency remedy given because no other treatment was available at the time, not a general religious prescription for all Muslims at all times. Either way, the drinking of camel urine is recommended. It just depends on the circumstance.
The Belief Is Still Active, and It Is Still Killing People
The clearest evidence that this isn’t a dead historical curiosity comes from WHO’s own published research. A 2023 study in the WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, titled “Use of camel urine is of no benefit to cancer patients,” followed 20 Saudi cancer patients (15 men, 5 women) between September 2020 and January 2022 who refused conventional chemotherapy in favor of drinking camel urine mixed with camel milk.
Below, a 2020 video of an Iranian doctor advising drinking camel urine for Covid, and leading by example:
The study’s authors state plainly what was driving the decision: “All of the patients believed that camel urine was a religious treatment and the advice came mainly from their community.” In their discussion section, the researchers explicitly trace the belief back to the same hadith cited above, citing Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim by book and hadith number as the origin of the practice.
The results were not good. None of the 20 patients showed any clinical benefit. All had disease progression, documented by imaging and tumor markers. Two developed brucellosis, a bacterial infection contracted from animals. One of those two was treated and returned to chemotherapy; the other died of respiratory failure with clinical features the researchers say were consistent with MERS-CoV pneumonia, though no autopsy was performed to confirm it.
Eleven patients eventually changed their minds and returned to conventional treatment. Seven were too weak by then to receive further care, and died of the disease they had been trying to treat with camel urine.
The study’s conclusion does not hedge: “The promotion of camel urine as a traditional medicine should be stopped because there is no scientific evidence to support it.”
The Timeline
Put the three data points next to each other, and the pattern is hard to miss:
2012: MERS-CoV identified in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Camels confirmed as the reservoir host.
2015: WHO issues a public warning during the South Korea outbreak, explicitly naming raw camel urine and milk as a risk to avoid, with contemporary reporting noting the religious belief behind the practice.
2020-2022: Saudi cancer patients, citing religious belief, choose camel urine over chemotherapy. Two develop brucellosis. Seven die after switching back to treatment too late.
2023: WHO publishes the clinical findings, tracing the belief directly to the hadith and calling for the practice to stop.
2025: WHO’s standing MERS-CoV fact sheet still carries the same warning against raw camel urine and milk, more than a decade after the original outbreak.
This is not a single overcautious health notice from a decade ago. It is a warning that has had to remain in force, unchanged, for more than ten years, because the underlying belief driving the exposure has never gone away. That belief has a specific, identifiable, textual source, and it is not ambiguous.
Camel urine as medicine is not a slur invented by critics of Islam. It is an authenticated instruction from Muhammad, preserved in Bukhari and Muslim. People still follow it today. Global health authorities are still investigating it. And according to the WHO’s own published research, it is still costing lives.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Muslims-doctors-recommended-drinking-camel-urine.jpg360640Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2026-08-02 14:42:362026-08-02 14:44:49During COVID, some Muslims doctors recommended drinking camel urine, which actually caused MERS and other diseases
Guess What? – You have been redefined. You are now:
HUMAN CAPITAL
“To most people, capital means a bank account, a hundred shares of IBM stock, assembly lines or steel plants in the Chicago area. These are all forms of capital in the sense that they are assets that yield income and other useful outputs over long periods of time.
Therefore, economists regard expenditures on education, training, medical care, and so on, as investments in human capital.
They are called human capital because people cannot be separated from their knowledge, skills, health or valuesin the way they can be separated from their financial and physical assets.” – Gary S. Becker
Today’s unsuspecting children … Human Capital – are being indoctrinatedinto this collective mindset in every school program that they use.
Over the past few weeks, President Trump gave to Education Secretary, Linda McMann, the task of closing the Federal Department of Education. He was thinking that by giving the states the responsibility of educating our children, they would turn to American history, economy and values. Wrong. Home schooling is the only answer. It’s the stupid curricula.
Remember when Governor Scott was in office and he tried his hardest to convince Floridians that the Florida Sunshine State Standards are NOT Common Core? Governors in other states are playing the same delete/replace game. Changing the name does not change the goal. Common Core is Communism, alive and well In public schools.
What Governors learned is that Americans are NOT THAT STUPID. Americans are fighting back!
Whenever I start a battle, I ask myself who is the enemy and what are we trying to accomplish?
What we do know:
Common Core is merely an implementation plan for Communism.
Common Core is all about creating “drones” for a planned, outcome-based economy run by corporate government.
STEM programs are a way to siphon off those with highest intellect to work in government-approved labs.
The rest of the Human Capital are dispensable.
AMERICANS, the new Indentured Servants
The purpose of all kids must go to college with high tuition is promoted in order to force the human capital into debt.
Human Capital in debt can own nothing and are forced into mandatory volunteerism of meaningless professions to work off their debt. Human Capital in debt can own nothing and are also known as “indentured servants”.
Common Core and its cousins, NCLB, School to Work, and Goals 2000 have been with us for years under a variety of names in a distinct effort to dumb-down Americans in favor of Outcome-Based Education by using a stimulus-response training program.
Your child’s destiny is predetermined by a Globalist corporation on a computer stored in an AI data center.
Who owns the data?
Who is making money from the data?
Who wants to be spied on 24/7?
Globalists believe that Dumb people require less of their government. We are doing ourselves a huge disservice unless we look at the whole picture.
Listen to Kat Stansell and me discuss the lies and harm being done to America by our Leaders.
Recently, Tallahassee passed SB484, to “regulate” data centers, which are suddenly being built by the thousands, all over the nation. Most citizens do NOT want them due to concerns coming from water, fuel and health issues, all of which are very valid…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Is-this-your-Future-AI.jpg359640Karen Schoenhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKaren Schoen2026-08-01 06:02:212026-08-01 06:04:54AI: Is this your Future? Whose Future is it?
There have been numerous recent takedowns of Dr. Fauci based on his own very revealing diary (e.g., here, here, here, and here), and then his uncooperative Senate hearing (e.g., here, here, and here).
I’m not here to pile on, but rather to bring into focus what I feel are the four (4) most appalling — yet rarely addressed — outcomes from his unscientific actions.. It seems like these have gotten lost in the jungle of the many problems he contributed to. Part 1 will outline two of these, and Part 2 will spell out the other two.
1 — Unnecessary American Deaths
Two (of many) examples of Dr. Fauci’s malfeasance are that he misrepresented the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy (e.g., see here), and he aggressively attacked the legitimacy of scientifically proven COVID-19 treatments (e.g., Ivermectin, Vitamin D, etc. — see here).
To see the broader picture, please re-read what I wrote two years ago, which outlined six (6) failures of our COVID policies. These detrimental policies are largely attributed to the inept, self-serving leadership of Dr. Fauci.
Due to the combination of those horrifically irresponsible, unscientific positions, 600,000± Americans died unnecessarily (e.g., see here).
Let me repeat: some 600,000 Americans died UNNECESSARILY…
To put that in perspective, that is more Americans than died in World War IplusWorld War II!
One man had the medical training and had a position of power to have been able to have saved 600,000± American lives. Yet he chose not to…
2 — Unnecessary American Costs
The economic impact on just America from costs that were substantially preventable (i.e., if Dr.Fauci and his acolytes actually followed real Science protocols) is in the neighborhood of $25 TRILLION!
Here is a sample study that was done early on (2020), but it does a good job of explaining some of the extensive COVID-19-related economic impacts. Of course we can not put a realistic financial evaluation on the 600,000± unnecessary deaths, and in 2020 we didn’t know the final death count… Here is AlterAI’s more detailed cost assessment.
Just think of what $25 Trillion could have done if used productively…
Eliminate 100% of poverty in the U.S… Cure several major diseases (cancer, Parkinson’s, etc.)… Complete national infrastructure overhaul (repair every bridge, road, etc.)… Total energy independence (reliable, safe, and free electricity for every citizen)… Genuine complete education reform… Substantially reduce income taxes for all citizens… Completely fix the Social Security system… Significantly reduce our debt, Etc., etc.
The Bottom Line (Part 1)
Forget the business of where the COVID-19 virus started, etc., and let’s focus on the REALLY MAJOR harms caused by Dr. Fauci and others of his ilk.
Watch this revealing video of Dr. Scott Atlas (who was there) to see how quickly and easily most “top-level” people capitulated to unscientific behavior.
How can we shrug our shoulders at 600,000± Americans being murdered due to incompetence, greed, arrogance, etc.?
How can we shrug our shoulders at a $25± Trillion cost to Americans again due to incompetence, greed, arrogance, etc.?
Where are the Nuremberg trials for these crimes against humanity?
As a minimum, the mug shots of the main culprits should be on Wanted posters in every post office in the country.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Critically-Thinking-about-Dr.-Fauci.jpg360640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-07-31 15:36:292026-07-31 15:38:56Critically Thinking about Dr. Fauci — Part 1
The drama we witnessed during the United States Senate Congressional hearing involving Dr. Anthony Fauci has raised many questions among Americans and people around the world.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a physician-scientist and immunologist, served as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022 and later served as Chief Medical Advisor to the President from 2021 to 2022. Dr. Fauci was at the center of the COVID-19 pandemic response and became one of the most recognized public health figures during that period.
As Yoruba man in South Western part of Nigeria I was told that you do not mix scientific research with political ideology or personal opinion because science deals with facts about human life. Of course, politicians often make decisions based on different interests, including political calculations, personal ambitions, and the interests of those around them.
What we witnessed during COVID-19 was, in the opinion of many critics, a situation where Americans and the rest of the world were not given the complete picture. The impact was global because many countries looked to Dr. Fauci, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other international health institutions for guidance on how to survive and tackle the pandemic.
Yes, during a pandemic, it is important to allow professionals to take center stage by making recommendations and offering guidelines on how to deal with the challenges at hand. A pandemic is primarily a medical and scientific issue. However, when people begin to believe that the gatekeepers of pandemic information may have provided advice based on uncertainty, assumptions, or incomplete information rather than fully established facts, there is a legitimate reason to ask questions.
Dr. Fauci was seen as a hero of COVID-19 by many, particularly within the Democratic Party and among those on the political left. However, his critics believe that some of his recommendations went against reasonable opinions and that, during the Trump administration, anyone who challenged President Donald Trump became celebrated by some political groups, regardless of whether their positions were correct or not.
Fast forward to the the Senate Congressional hearing, Dr. Fauci was invited to testify and provide answers to the American people and the world about what happened, including explanations about some of his decisions, actions, and inactions. This is a standard process in a democratic society. However, many people were surprised that Dr. Fauci appeared with an attorney, raising questions among critics because this was not a criminal interrogation or a subpoena process. Some believe that the decision created the impression that there was something to hide.
It is also important to note that Dr. Anthony Fauci received a last-minute presidential pardon from the Biden administration. Many people have continued to ask questions about the reason behind that decision. In the eyes of critics, a person who has nothing to hide should have nothing to fear.
The fact that Dr. Fauci reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during questioning has also increased suspicion among some Americans who believe there are still unanswered questions.
As a Nigerian, I personally lost a close friend and boss, Chinua Chike Anosike, to COVID-19, and that loss still hurts me today. For families who lost loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic in America and around the world, there is a desire for transparency, accountability, and closure.
I believe Dr. Fauci, the WHO, and other organizations involved in managing the pandemic should explain their roles and decisions during that difficult period. From the beginning of the pandemic, President Donald Trump raised concerns that the virus could have originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. At the time, Dr. Fauci and the WHO stated that there was no evidence confirming that possibility, but the debate over the origins of COVID-19 continues.
There are also ongoing questions about vaccine mandates, the handling of natural immunity, and whether some public health decisions were communicated properly to the public.
In my opinion, accountability should not focus only on Dr. Fauci. It should include everyone involved in shaping the global COVID-19 response, including international organizations, pharmaceutical companies, media organizations that promoted certain narratives, and technology companies accused of limiting discussions and free speech on these issues.
The goal should not be revenge or political division. The goal should be finding the truth, learning from mistakes, and ensuring that future generations are better prepared for another global health crisis.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FAUCI-MASK.jpg359640Oladigbo Oluwasogo Olalekanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngOladigbo Oluwasogo Olalekan2026-07-31 05:58:272026-07-31 15:28:35What Is Dr. Anthony Fauci Afraid Of?
I am reposting a fine commentary from the very competent and insightful conservatiove attorney, Francis Menton.
This is not only important for the reasons he so clearly enumerates, but also because the NAS (National Academy of Science) organization he categorizes as incompetent is essentially the source of the primary authors of the deplorable NGSS and Framework. (See my prior commentary on the NGSS/Framework.)
In my own professional life, I was not a scientist, and therefore I never much paid attention to the kinds of rewards and honors that practicing scientists pass out to each other. But at some point I became aware that there was something called the National Academy of Sciences, and that among scientists it was considered a big deal to get selected to become a member. This membership is one of those things that you cannot apply for; rather, one day you get “tapped” by some committee of super-elite gurus who invite you to come learn the secret handshake. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about membership:
Membership of the National Academy of Sciences is an award granted to scientists that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the United States judges to have made “distinguished and continuing achievements in original research”. Membership is a mark of excellence in science and one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.
(At some point in the 2010s, the NAS got somehow consolidated with comparable “academies” of engineering and medicine, to become a combined organization going by the name of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, or NASEM. This post only concerns the Science part of the combined entity, although I have no reason to think that the other parts are any better.)
Well, as far as I can tell, they are all morons. Also, corrupt morons.
I last wrote about the NAS in February of this year, in a post titled “Would You Trust The National Academies Of Science To Tell You How Science Works?” The occasion for that post was that something called the Federal Judicial Center had just issued a new edition of its Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Recognizing that this subject went outside the core of its own expertise, the FJC had called on the NAS to take the main role in the drafting. In the new edition, a chapter from prior editions of the Manual titled “How Science Works” had been taken over by new authors, and substantially re-written and greatly expanded (from 18 to 61 pages). In the process, the new authors had inserted a series of howlers that not only did not fairly describe how science works, but actually got the whole process wrong by 180 degrees. I cited several examples in the February post, but this is the one that goes closest to the heart of the craziness: “While the often-stated maxim that correlation does not imply causation is true, in fact, correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science.” That statement is just flatly wrong. Instead, the process for establishing causation in science operates through the falsification of alternative (“null”) hypotheses of causation. I do not know how anyone could even think to call themselves a “scientist” without basic understanding of that logical process.
And yet here was the NAS, supposedly a collection of the most elite among elite scientists, putting together a chapter of an official court Manual to tell non-scientists (lawyers and judges) “how science works,” and getting it 180 degrees wrong on the single most important point.
Which of course begs for a necessary consideration of the next question: Was this an innocent mistake by ignorant people, or was it an intentional distortion intended to further a political agenda?
Now, just last week, the National Academies have released their latest embarrassment, taking this fundamental fallacy and expanding and running with it. The event at issue was the release of a new Report called “Attribution of Extreme Weather Events and Their Impacts.” Here is the July 15 press release from NASEM, and here is another link to the body of the Report itself. The Report runs to some 175 pages, plus appendices.
The gist of the Report is that now, based on some sort of new research, we suddenly have the tools to “attribute” any extreme weather event of our choosing (hurricane, tornado, drought, flood, whatever) to “human activities.” “Human activities” in this context means the release of “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. With that, you can see where they are ultimately going, although this final piece is not mentioned in the Report: the basic idea is that every extreme weather event is the fault of the oil companies.
The very first line of the “Summary”reveals that they knew the conclusion before they started:
“Earth system changes driven by rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities are affecting characteristics of extreme weather and climate events, such as frequency and intensity.”
That’s nice. An how exactly do you know it? Here are the two fundamental questions that need to be addressed: (1) What are the alternative hypotheses that you have considered, and how have those been ruled out as the causes of the recent extreme weather events? And (2) what has been your consideration of the evidence, if any, that might contradict or undermine the hypothesis that “human activities” and increased greenhouse gas concentrations are the cause of these extreme weather events?
Get ready: In a Report of 175 pages, they don’t expend even one word to address either of those two questions.
Instead, it’s all about whatever confirming evidence they can find about correlation between extreme weather events and (slightly) increasing global temperatures. They claim to have a “foundational understanding” of the relationship between increasing greenhouse gases and extreme weather events. How they have achieved this “foundational understanding” without ever entertaining any alternative hypothesis is never mentioned. But the “foundational understanding” has supposedly been “strengthened” by the accumulation of evidence consistent with it (while deliberately ignoring all inconsistent evidence). Here is a lengthy quote from the Summary as to how the “foundational understanding” has been strengthened:
Over the past decade, advances in three key scientific pillars have continued to strengthen this foundation. First, physical understanding has matured through accumulation of observational and modeling evidence supporting long-standing theoretical expectations, so that increases in extreme heat and heavy rainfall events across much of the globe can be more confidently and precisely attributed to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Second, the length and quality of observational data have improved in some regions with another decade of data collection . . . , new satellite-based Earth-observing missions, and the development and improvement of homogenized, high-resolution data sets. Third, climate models continue to improve in their representation of critical processes. . . .
Consideration of alternative hypotheses or potentially conflicting evidence? Hey, we don’t do that, we’re scientists!
Readers of this blog and of many skeptic websites know well that the real evidence out there is that extreme weather events are not increasing at all. How dozens of these supposedly top “scientists” from the NAS could write this Report without mentioning or discussing any of this evidence is beyond me. It’s completely humiliating for them.
I won’t try in this post to give any comprehensive set of links here to data sets showing that extreme weather events are not increasing. But, as an example, here is a page at Watts Up With That with data on hurricanes. From that page, here is a chart compiled by Ryan Maue with annual data since the early 1970s on accumulated cyclonic energy:
Can you spot the increasing trend? Neither can I. These clowns from the NAS are claiming that even though ACE has not gone up overall, and has gone down in the most recent years, they just know that whatever hurricane comes through next is the fault of Exxon. That’s the level of quality of this work.
On July 14, the day before this Report was released, a guy named Pat Parenteau, gave an interview to Politico’s E&E News on this subject. Parenteau is a long-time advisor to a law firm called Sher Edling, which is known for representing dozens of plaintiffs in lawsuits against fossil fuel producers claiming harm from climate change. The E&E News article is behind paywall, but Energy in Depth here has the key quote from Parenteau:
“A report with the kind of gravitas that the National Academies can bring will be a huge boost to the plantiffs’ cases.”
Further from EID:
The people involved in the report’s development include Michael Burger, an academic and attorney for climate plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling, as well Delta Merner, who leads the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Accountability Campaign and served on the NAS committee guiding the report’s development until January 2025. Both Burger and Merner have publicly discussed the critical relationship between attribution science and climate litigation.
The federal government needs to completely defund the NAS today, if not sooner. Also, I call on every member of the NAS to resign. If you stay in, you are complicit in this total scam.
Mr. Menton’s UPDATE, July 24:
John Christy sends along links to two of his recent papers. The first, published in April 2026, is titled “Declines in hot and cold daily temperature extremes in the conterminous US, 1899–2025.” That’s right, it’s declines rather than increases. The second, from November 2019, co-authored with Ross McKitrick, is titled “Assessing changes in US regional precipitation on multiple time scales.” From the abstract of the second paper: “We show that 2000-year proxy-based reconstructions of the Palmer Modified Drought Index for the US Southeast (SE) and Pacific Coast (PC) regions exhibit LTP and reveal post- 1900 changes to be within the range of longer-term natural fluctuations.” John says that an updated version of the second paper is currently under review pending publication.
Needless to say, the NAS Report did not cite and completely ignored both of these two papers (along with all other adverse evidence).
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/National-Academy-of-Science-Sign.jpg345640John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-07-27 06:28:312026-07-27 06:30:23Yet Another Embarrassment from the National Academy of Pseudoscience
Marc Morano: It’s about time Canada owned up to the disaster that was Justin Trudeau, with all his virtue-signaling on climate that had real economic impacts for Canadians. I’ve been out to Western Canada, Calgary, many times, and the grassroots organizations have been fighting this agenda. These climate policies have laid waste to the Canadian economy over the past decade for this Net Zero climate insanity.
Now you have PM Mark Carney, who is not ideologically different from Trudeau; he’s just more of a pragmatist, and he’s realized that the chickens have come home to roost, that these green policies were not sustainable. Carney used the word not sustainable, to talk about Trudeau’s climate policy. He called Trudeau’s policies ‘expensive’, he called them ‘divisive.’ Canada is now opening up energy; they got rid of the carbon tax, at least they zeroed it out — it’s still there on paper. They’re adding pipelines to Asia, pipelines to the West Coast; they’re exporting natural gas. It’s a Trump Canadian version.
This is Trumpism and Trump’s energy policies coming to Canada, and Justin Trudeau’s legacy going down the toilet now.
I’ve always said that Gavin Newsom is America’s Justin Trudeau. So let’s hope we can get a future governor of California to do exactly this — imagine the sweetness of having Gavin Newsom’s legacy destroyed.
Fox Anchor: Okay, Marc Morano. You are always terrific. We’ll stay on the story. We’ll have you back on again soon. It’s always good to see you, Marc Morano, Climate Depot.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-energy-coming-to-Canada.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2026-07-15 14:40:022026-07-15 14:45:27Morano: Trump energy coming to Canada, and Trudeau’s legacy down the toilet
Recently, there was a monumental development that 99% of the world didn’t notice or adequately appreciate. Let’s start with the fact that Dr. Judith Curry is a world-renowned climate expert, with impeccable bona fides.
For MANY years she has willingly absorbed the slings and arrows of the media and compromised scientists, because she had the audacity to push back against the climate alarmist narrative — one of the major scourges of our lifetime. Despite numerous obstacles and attacks, she was committed to selflessly sharing Real Climate Science with the public.
On her very popular blog (Climate Etc.) Dr. Curry posted documented scientific information, answered questions, took criticism, etc. None of this was for financial gain, as her net blog costs were tens of thousands of dollars. Her most recent post (below) is about ending her blog (after 16 years) and moving on.
Dr. Curry has been a sensible, scientific voice for YOU. IMHO, she is not only an exemplary Scientist, but is a true American patriot. Thank you, Judy!
It’s time to declare victory against climate stupidity and move on.
Well, the definition of victory here is about as fuzzy as that for the Iran war. Here is a summary of why Climate Etc. is being euthanized:
Major progress has been made in the climate debate and the political climate has changed
My interests have evolved in other directions
The logistics and cost of keeping the blog running are substantial.
State of the Climate Wars
There have been some decisive battles in the past two years, notably President Trump’s election, the DOE Climate Report, and widespread acknowledgement that RCP8.5 is an implausible emissions scenario. As a result, many news agencies have dropped or substantially reduced their climate desk, we don’t hear about climate change so much in the media (particularly as related to extreme weather events). Also, we can’t underestimate the impact of substantially reduced funding for climate-related NGOs, with USAID and other funds drying up.
The leaders of the climate alarmism movement have not conceded defeat but have done much whining, notably over President Trump and the RCP8.5 scenario. They are still trying to discredit the authors of the DOE Report. Triggered by the DOE Report, they have mostly stopped flogging the warming/extreme weather link, although there is a hardcore group that is committed to extreme event attribution as a mechanism to support litigation against fossil fuel companies. With the demise of the extreme weather link, the climate alarmists are now focused on climate “tipping points,” which simply doesn’t resonate with the public (extreme weather events were much more alarming).
But most importantly, the whole issue has lost its political relevance. During the past several months, we have watched the entire world panic over loss of access to Middle Eastern oil, and major concerns raised about the need for massively more electricity to support data centers. Putting a tourniquet around our energy supply in the name of eliminating CO2 emissions is a much worse idea now than it was even a few years ago, and that seems to be widely recognized (even in Europe). Most tellingly, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has dropped climate change as an issue, now focusing on AI (and health).
We are perhaps at an inflection point; one can only hope that the climate enterprise will redirect its efforts away from flogging the CO2 climate control knob mantra and towards understanding regional climate variability, particularly as influenced by natural variability, to support efforts at reducing vulnerability to weather extremes. And figure out how to better work with nature to support our needs for food, water, energy.
I’m moving on
When I was planning my retirement from Georgia Tech, I viewed Climate Etc. as a hedge against becoming bored in my retirement. Ha! Seems that it is impossible for me to become bored; too many interesting things to do and to learn about and to ponder.
After publishing my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk, and co-authoring the DOE Climate Report (I have prepared revisions to my sections; who knows when this will ever be published), I frankly don’t have much more to say on the topic of the climate wars. I have no interest in battling with the likes of Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler, et al. (does anybody still care what they have to say?)
Apart from the climate wars, I remain very interested in the fascinating and complex climate system, I erratically consume new research as I come across it (which can be pretty random sometimes). But most of climate science has become BORING . . . too much mega-modeling and politicking, and not enough thinking. In any event, I no longer have an interest in writing for the public on these topics.
My professional interests are more focused on extreme weather on timescales from hours to a year, which is the focus of my company Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), along with decision-making under uncertainty and risk science. It’s a fascinating time for weather forecasting, and CFAN is deeply immersed in the new opportunities afforded by AI. I write reports on a range of related topics, which are sent to CFAN’s clients (they are not made public). I continue to do consulting on climate-related topics, supporting litigation and developing regional, decadal-scale scenarios to support risk assessment for specific client needs.
I’ve been pretty quiet on Twitter (I can’t bring myself to call it X) for the last several months; maybe I should step up my commentary there — I still have a lot to say, and short comments responding to a paper or news item are about the right level of effort at this point.
Now that my granddaughter is in high school (yes, she is very interested in science), I have been paying more attention to what is going on at the universities, which I abandoned in disgust almost a decade ago.
Personally, after a big downsizing and moving into a much smaller and simpler place, Peter and I are focused on our new dog Lucy, after our previous dogs Bruno and Rosie succumbed to old age. And establishing the garden at our new place.
A peaceful life with family and friends, exploring the world and its new developments from my laptop, and having a blast with AI.
Blog logistics
Climate Etc. is a really old blog in terms of blog years – since 2010. Since then, WordPress has modernized and upgraded. Hacking/security has become a growing issue. The way that Climate Etc. was originally set up is fairly obsolete.
I have set up a new account on Substack; if I am ever motivated to resume blogging, that is where I will be. I can also make extended posts on Twitter (X), although that is more awkward for anything at all technical. Anything newsworthy that I write I will send to WUWT.
But frankly, beyond this current post I’m not seeing any blogging or other public writing in my future.
Eulogy
Climate Etc. isn’t dead yet, but it is in hospice, and all life support is being removed (I’m not paying any more $$ to support the blog). We’ll see how long the patches, etc. that I’ve already paid for will keep the site accessible.
An experiment that started in 2010 in the wake of ClimateGate, Climate Etc. has exceeded my wildest expectations. It has been one of the highlights of my career, and I am endlessly grateful to all of you who have participated here (especially guest bloggers) and to the new friends and colleagues that I have found from the blog. My book Climate Uncertainty and Risk is a culmination of the topics that we have explored on the blog, and is the legacy of this blog.
While writing this post, I have reminisced about the denizens and “characters” that have come and gone on this blog. An amazing cross-section of people with diverse expertise from many different parts of the world.
My deepest thanks to all of the guest posters and commenters who have contributed to making Climate Etc. a vibrant, stimulating, and occasionally influential place. My very best wishes to each of you.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
