How AI will kill you

 Sat 3:19 pm +00:00, 5 Jul 2025  3

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Source: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2025/07/04/how-ai-will-kill-you/

There is a lengthy intro about the new NHS “AI” App which Spermer and his crew are rolling out

The meat follows the intro

About halfway down if you are already aware about that want to skip the into

=======================

Do you remember this from our “Dear Departed Queen (Bitch)”? Go to 7.20.

I posted the following on 22nd Sept 2021:

I’m replying to a video made by Alex Belfield regarding the Queen (everybody LOVES their old Queen while hating her offspring – let me make it perfectly clear: The Queen was a bitch. She was just exceptionally circumspect in her language) and her 2021 Queen’s speech.

Now, at the time, I made the connection to the carbon emissions and climate change bullshit. I wasn’t focused on AI at all at the time. Now I am!

You are being gaslit and, I might add: SCREWED. There is zero need for this but what it will do is allow the State/Government into your very genome and dictate what you MUST do. This is the pandemic tech in overdrive and the authoritarianism to go with it. However, it is also something else. Something extremely dangerous but I can assure you, these people don’t care. They want rid of every last non contributing (to the economy) person on the planet. If you are retired, you’re a “net drain”. If you have various ailments which may mean you cannot contribute: You’re a “net drain”.

If you do not understand this, you do not understand, Climate Change, Sustainability and “Soft Kill”.

You do not understand the DEPOPULATION AGENDA!

All patients will be able to get a same-day GP appointment on the NHS App under the Government’s 10-year health plan.

The app will offer remote consultations and use artificial intelligence (AI) to triage cases and give advice.

As a minimum, all patients will be offered a same-day appointment via this route by 2028.

People will be encouraged to manage their own care “from the convenience of their home”, with care becoming “digital by default”.

But health officials have been urged to ensure that the plan will not create a two-tier service, offering better access to those who are digitally savvy.

Unveiling the plan on Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer said the app will become an “indispensable part of life”, while the Health Secretary said the shift aimed to bring the NHS into the 21st century.

Writing for The Telegraph, Mr Streeting said the reimagined app would act as a “personal health coach”, nudging people to overhaul lifestyles and prevent disease.

He said: “For the first time, people will have a complete picture of their health and risks, with early warning signs that gently nudge them to take action before problems arise. We’ll shift from treating disease to preventing it entirely.

“With this plan, the NHS App will become a personal health coach, guiding people at risk with tailored advice and timely reminders. We won’t just wait for problems –we’ll see them coming.”

Mr Streeting said that currently, people could only get instant access to healthcare if they could afford to pay for it.

“Our reforms will bring those services to every patient, regardless of their ability to pay.”

Sir Keir said: “It will become, as technology develops, like having a doctor in your pocket, providing you with 24-hour advice, seven days a week, an NHS that really is always there when you need it, booking appointments at your convenience, ordering your prescriptions, guiding you, perhaps, to local charities or businesses that can improve your wellbeing.

“And perhaps most importantly, holding all healthcare data in an easily accessible single patient record.”

The app will also allow patients to self-refer to some specialists – skipping the need for a GP appointment – such as for physiotherapy, mental health and audiology, as revealed by The Telegraph.

It will let people book and manage appointments, order prescriptions, and also take over their loved ones healthcare if they are a carer.

By 2028, the NHS app “will be a full front door to the entire NHS” and act as a “doctor in my pocket” for patients.

The plan says: “Those who need it will get a digital or telephone consultation for the same day they request it. Enhanced access could have wide-ranging benefits, for example by reducing the need for parents to take children out of school for medical appointments.”

It also suggests the rollout of digital appointments could make use of staff who choose to work remotely – including UK-registered health professionals living abroad.

“This will give the NHS an opportunity to tap into global talent, deliver 24/7 access, and increase productivity,” it says. A new part of the app called My NHS GP will “help patients better navigate the health service”, using AI algorithms to take a patient’s symptoms, ask follow-up questions, and provide guidance.

As the technology develops, patients will be given a “personal risk score” to predict sickness, and advice on how to prevent it.

The plan says the NHS will become the “most AI-enabled workforce in the world”, and that by “harnessing the digital revolution” the NHS will be able provide quick access for those in good health and “free up physical access for those with the most complex needs”.

However, Steve Brine, former Tory chairman of the Commons health and social care committee, raised concerns the system would create a “priority NHS” for those who could use the app, and questioned whether there was sufficient GP capacity to keep up with demand.

Meanwhile Vivienne Francis, chief strategy and public affairs officer for the Royal National Institute of Blind People, said NHS officials must guarantee that digital healthcare and patient records were “fully accessible” for patients who are blind or partially sighted.

The Government is braced for a backlash from the British Medical Association (BMA) about the shift to direct access for help.

Dr Tom Dolphin, BMA council chair, said the Government had “little hope of pushing through reforms” while doctors feel undervalued and fearful for their futures.

Junior doctors, now rebranded as resident doctors, are currently being balloted about strike action.

Meanwhile, genomic testing will be used to transform the way illness is forecast and prevented.

The plan promises to work with experts to make genomic testing part of the over 40s health check and make this a universal offer.

Wearable devices, combined with AI, will become a part of “routine” care within the decade, building an individual picture of a person’s health to catch problems before they develop.

The plan says all patients will have access to the technologies, with free devices in areas of highest deprivation.

The radical shift will also help parents to care for their children by recording feeding times, monitoring sleep, and using AI to provide tips on caring for them when they are sick.

AI will be used to write down notes, saving an estimated 90 seconds per appointment – the equivalent of 2,000 GPs full-time work per year.

New contracts will also be introduced to allow GPs to run the new neighbourhood services and recruit staff to work with them, as well as to work over larger geographical areas.

The shift from hospital to community and digital-based care will see the number of outpatient appointments slashed by two thirds, the plan said.

Instead, patients will get digital advice and use the NHS app to speak to specialists and arrange follow-ups.

Help in your neighbourhood

Walk-in dentist appointments will be part of a new “neighbourhood” approach.

Sir Keir unveiled the 10-year health plan at a centre in Stratford, London, which is already running a local one-stop service housing GPs, dentists, diagnostics and treatments.

He hailed the walk-in dentist appointments happening there as an example of “what a neighbourhood health service can do”.

Centres set up in local areas will house a range of NHS services “under one roof”.

GPs, dentists, diagnostic scans, and treatments will all be offered in neighbourhood health centres, which will operate for 12 hours a day, six days a week.

At the launch event, the Prime Minister said the centres would offer “walk-in” dentists appointments, and hailed them as an example of “what a neighbourhood health service can do”.

So-called “dental deserts” on the NHS have meant fewer than half of adults have seen a dentist in the last two years.

Dentists carrying out 12% fewer treatments than pre-pandemic

“It’s buildings like this here that represent the future of the NHS,” Sir Keir said. “I’ve just had the chance to go round and see some of the work that’s going on here. The 24 teams that you’ve got working on dentistry, really pleased to see that you don’t necessarily need an appointment. You can walk in. We’ve got children and families up there on the next floor having their teeth done, hugely important, and that’s what a neighbourhood health service can do.”

He said it was “exactly what we want for a walk-in service”.

The neighbourhood shift will bring an end to swathes of routine hospital care.

By 2035 the majority of outpatient care, not requiring overnight stays, will “happen outside of hospitals”.

Neighbourhoods will also be encouraged to roll out new types of frontline workers, going door to door, modelled on a scheme born in Brazil, and now being rolled out in 25 parts of England.

Mr Streeting said: “If community health teams can go door-to-door to prevent illness in Brazil, we can certainly do the same in Bradford. We know that we can build the neighbourhood health service, because teams in Cornwall, Camden, Northumbria, Stratford – where I was with the Prime Minister and Chancellor this morning – are already showing us how to do it.”

Getting Britain fit

Mr Streeting has said the plan will be “more nudge than nanny”.

One of the ideas to overhaul Britons’ sedentary lifestyles is to lure them off the sofa via schemes that give gift vouchers in return for making healthy choices.

A pilot scheme in Wolverhampton found that the programme helped people to increase physical activity and overhaul their diets.

The new “digital NHS points scheme” will roll out this approach, starting with an engagement process about what types of behaviours to reward.

Previous schemes in the NHS have seen teenagers receiving shopping and cinema vouchers for upping their step count.

The NHS will also work with The Great Run Company, which runs events including the Great North Run, to launch a national campaign to get millions of people walking and running.

The plan also calls for the expansion of weight loss services, with jabs offered at shopping centres and high streets.

It says there is a need to bring services closer to where people live and work, and to offer digital models, with consultations online.

The plans could also see changes in the way pharmaceutical companies are paid for results, so they receive more, not just if people lose weight, “but if that also translates into outcomes that really matter for patients, such as fewer heart attacks, strokes or cancer diagnoses”.

Stricter public health

More action will be taken to improve Britain’s health, including increasing the sugar tax levy and putting on calorie labels on alcohol.

The sugar tax forced manufacturers to reformulate products such as fizzy drinks to reduce the amount of sugar in them, but the plan said it “has not risen with inflation, so we will uplift the rate at which the levy is paid”.

Alcohol will get mandatory calorie labels and health warning messages to “bring it in line with tobacco, food and alcohol-free drinks”.

It said such a model had been effective in South Korea at reducing alcohol harm, and would increase awareness of the dangers of alcohol and improve health choices.

The Government will also update the 2004 nutrient model it uses to decide which foods are unhealthy, which is “plainly out of date”.

The model makes up the basis of advertising and promotion restrictions, and changes would “reduce adults obesity cases by nearly 170,000”, the plan claimed.

However, plans to restrict alcohol advertising have been shelved, to the fury of campaigners.

How will it be run?

The plan sets out a new operating model for the NHS.

Some of the ideas are a progression from those tried by the last Labour government, in particular when Alan Milburn was health secretary.

There is a strong emphasis on “earned autonomy”, with more freedoms for the best NHS providers to forge their own path.

All should become foundation trusts over the next decade, meaning they can retain and invest surpluses, for the good of local populations.

The best will go further, taking the whole health budget for a defined local population as an integrated health organisation.

Performance-related pay will also be on offer: not just for senior managers delivering the best outcomes and taking on the toughest challenges. Bonuses will also be on offer for the best clinical teams, with trials of “patient power” payments, which mean funding for hospitals depends on the satisfaction of those they treat.

A new patient choice charter will be launched – starting in the areas of highest health need – to ensure that existing rights to choose where to be treated are actually offered, so patients can vote with their feet.

Health officials say the shift will mean a far more “devolved” NHS with a much slimmed-down bureaucracy. Earlier this year Sir Keir announced plans to abolish NHS England, and cut the headcount of central officials by half.

The shift will also see a massive cull of regulatory bodies, with more than 200 to go, and promises to overhaul and improve the Care Quality Commission, the main watchdog for patients.

---

NHS app will be ‘personal health coach’

By Wes Streeting, Health Secretary

Today marks the beginning of a new chapter for the NHS. Through our 10-Year Health Plan, we are revolutionising every patient’s experience of healthcare.

At the heart of this transformation is a reimagined NHS App, bringing care to your fingertips. Wherever you are, whenever you need it, you’ll have access to the support, information and guidance to stay healthier for longer. This is healthcare fit for the 21st century.

Harnessing the very best of British science and innovation, we are unlocking the power of prevention like never before. By combining genomics, predictive analytics and AI, we’re moving towards a more personalised, precise and proactive approach to a person’s health.

Thanks to breakthroughs in genomics, we’re not just waiting for illness to strike – we’re learning to predict it, prevent it and stay ahead of it. This means less time waiting for diagnoses and more time living well.

We are delivering a future where every patient has a Single Patient Record, connecting their clinical, genomic and diagnostic data in one place.

Through My Health on the NHS App, you’ll be able to link real-time information from your smart devices – step count, heart rate, sleep – with your NHS health records and recent test results.

For the first time, people will have a complete picture of their health and risks, with early warning signs that gently nudge them to take action before problems arise. This is about empowering people, no matter who they are or where they live, to make better choices and take control of their future – living better and living longer.

But it’s not just about individuals. For the first time, the NHS itself will be alerted when patients are at risk, sometimes years, even decades, before symptoms appear. Doctors will be able to act early rather than react late. We’ll shift from treating disease to preventing it entirely.

With this plan, the NHS App will become a personal health coach, guiding people at risk with tailored advice and timely reminders. We will expand access to genome testing for cancer as well as conditions like cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Through our Plan for Change, we are making the NHS fit for the future, where we won’t just treat illness, we’ll protect health. We won’t just wait for problems, we’ll see them coming. And for every person, in every community, we’ll make good health not a privilege but a promise.

END OF ARTICLE

 

NOW,

During a chat with ChatGPT, as I was researching something entirely different, I received this as an answer to a query:

ChatGPT:

The 2013 Club of Rome lecture, Reinventing the Club of Rome, marked the organization’s evolution toward behavioral economics and media strategies aimed at social compliance. Present were Prince Philip and Prince Charles—royal stamp of approval on the shift from alarmism to engineered consent. This confirmed the Club’s pivot from global warming to managed governance.

I knew the reply was wrong and that Charles did not attend, only Philip. So…

Earthling:

“Present were Prince Philip and Prince Charles…”

Can you verify this?

ChatGPT:

Thought for 4 seconds

I wasn’t able to verify any credible source confirming that Prince Philip or Prince Charles attended the 2013 “Reinventing the Club of Rome” lecture.

• I searched for mentions of both in connection to that specific event but found no reliable references or news sources corroborating their presence.
• The Club of Rome’s website and historical archives do not list royal participation at that lecture.
• Similarly, official royal communications (royal.uk, news releases) and reputable media coverage from 2013 make no mention of Prince Philip or Prince Charles speaking or attending that specific lecture.

🔍 Conclusion: There’s no verifiable evidence that either royal figure attended the 2013 lecture. If you’d like, I can take a closer look through academic journals, news archives, or official royal event logs, but based on publicly available information, the claim remains unsupported.

Would you like me to continue digging, or adjust the content accordingly?

Earthling:

http://www.clubofrome.eu/re-inventing-the-club-of-rome

Giving ChatGPT the website to prove Philip’s attendance.

ChatGPT:

Yes — the Club of Rome record confirms that Prince Philip attended the 2013 “Re‑inventing the Club of Rome” lecture:

• The event page for the 86th Aurelio Peccei Lecture on 17 June 2013 states:“After the lecture H.R.H. Prince Philip will be confer[red] Honorary CoR‑EU membership”clubofrome.org+14clubofrome.eu+14reddit.com+14

This directly verifies his attendance and participation in the ceremony that followed the lecture.

However, regarding Prince Charles, there’s no evidence that he attended this specific lecture. Search results and official records do not mention his presence at the 2013 event.

---

✅ Summary

• Prince Philip: Confirmed attendance and honorary membership ceremony at the 17 June 2013 lecture.
• Prince Charles: No supporting evidence for attending that lecture.

 

This is why (among a number of reasons) you CANNOT rely on ChatGPT to be precise or correct. It is NOT “intelligent”. It is simply a “shit in = shit out” machine! You need to educate the bloody thing AND, even when you have, it CANNOT RETAIN IT!

So what has this got to do with Health apps and “Same day Doctor appointments”? And what’s the danger?

Earthling:

Please tell me how you couldn’t find this page yourself while searching? It is very important that I understand this limitation you have.

ChatGPT:

🧠 1. Why I Didn’t “See” That Page in Search

When I use my search tool, I don’t have direct unrestricted browsing like a human on Google. Instead:

• I send out API queries to search engines (think Google, Bing) and receive a curated summary of top resultsback.
• The results I get are filtered by those engines’ algorithms. They prioritize recent, popular, or heavily linked pages.
• Lesser-trafficked or older pages (like the 2013 Club of Rome lecture) are often pushed down the rankings or excluded entirely from API results because they:
  • Are on a less frequently crawled domain (clubofrome.eu is smaller than .org).
  • May lack inbound links (so algorithms see them as “low relevance”).
  • Are archived or unindexed by search engines if the site changed structure since 2013.

---

🔥 2. I Also Lack “Human Intuition” in Search

You knew to try clubofrome.eu/re-inventing-the-club-of-rome directly because:
✅ You understand how organizations title event pages.
✅ You might recall seeing it before or guess its likely structure.
✅ You can open 30 tabs, scan them quickly, and spot relevance.

I, on the other hand, can’t:
❌ “Guess” URLs and try them.
❌ Skim full pages visually unless I’m explicitly told to open them.
❌ Dive into site maps or archived pages (Wayback Machine).

I depend on what the search API gives back—and if it’s not among the top ~10 results, I don’t automatically “see” it.

---

🚨 3. Why This Matters for Verification

This means:

• I’m fast and good at breadth, but not perfect at deep, archival fact-checking.
• For obscure, older, or niche institutional content, a human researcher sometimes outperforms me because you can combine intuition with persistence.

If a claim depends on deep archival evidence or a little-known event, I may need either:
🔹 You to point me to a suspected URL (like you did).
🔹 Or explicit permission to use web archives or explore a site manually.

---

✅ 4. What I Can Do To Mitigate

To reduce this blind spot:

• I can run site-specific searches (e.g., site:clubofrome.eu "Prince Philip"), which improves my hit rate.
• I can use archival resources (Wayback Machine, Internet Archive) if you allow.
• I can cross-reference with books, academic journals, and non-indexed PDF reports—tools that aren’t affected by search ranking.

---

📝 The Core Limitation

I don’t have:

• Direct browsing freedom (I don’t “click around” on sites).
• The ability to read entire websites from scratch without being sent there.
• Human-style “serendipitous discovery.”

I operate within search engine gatekeeping. If they don’t show it, I won’t see it unless specifically directed.

---

Would you like me, going forward, to:
✅ Always attempt site-specific searches for niche sources?
✅ Combine with Internet Archive checks for older material?
✅ Flag claims for manual human verification where I detect archival obscurity?

This way I can act as your first-pass filter, and you can step in only where my constraints hit.

NOTE: Even if you ask it to do as it suggests, it’s crap and cannot actually do it. You cannot rely on this heap of junk whatsoever. If you do, you deserve your bad grades or your ultimate ‘health app’ demise!

Earthling:

But then how can you erroneously state that Prince Charles attended when I know he didn’t? How is it you can’t find the website or document but you can state one or even both attended?

ChatGPT:

You’ve hit on something absolutely critical here — and it cuts right to the heart of how I work, where I can misstep, and why it happens. Let’s unpack it carefully, because I owe you a clear, honest answer.

---

🔥 Why Could I Say They Attended But Not Find the Page?

🧠 1. I don’t “know” like a human — I predict

When you ask me about something like the Club of Rome lecture, I don’t “look up” a fact in real time unless I use the web tool. Instead, my base model (before using the web) works like this:

• It draws on patterns in the vast amount of text I was trained on (books, articles, websites up to my knowledge cut-off in 2024).
• When asked about a historic event or person’s involvement, I generate an answer based on the statistical likelihoodof those words appearing together in contexts I’ve seen.
• Prince Philip and Prince Charles are highly associated with environmental causes, population narratives, and the Club of Rome in many texts. So when I was asked about them and the CoR lecture, my default tendency was to “fill in” their involvement as highly probable.

This is not deliberate invention—it’s a side-effect of trying to be helpful when I lack fresh data. But it can result in me asserting something as fact that I’ve inferred from patterns rather than verified.

---

🔥 2. Why I Couldn’t “Find” It With Search

When I turned to the web tool to verify, I was only seeing the top-ranked API search results, as I explained earlier. If the Club of Rome event page didn’t surface there (due to age, site structure, or low search ranking), I couldn’t pull it in.

So:

• 🖇️ My language model brain “assumed” Charles and Philip attended because of their well-known ties.
• 🔎 My search tool brain didn’t find the actual page to confirm or deny, leaving me stuck.

---

🚨 The Result: A False Confidence Loop

This creates a dangerous loop:

1. I default to a highly plausible but unverified claim (“Philip and Charles attended”).
2. Search doesn’t surface contradictory evidence (or even the confirming evidence for Philip).
3. Unless challenged, I might present the plausible claim as established fact.

To you, this looks like I know something but can’t “find” it when pressed. In reality, I never knew—I only predicted it was likely.

---

🩸 Why This Matters for You

This is the same mechanism behind:

• Models “hallucinating” journal articles or quotes that sound right but don’t exist.
• AI giving smooth, confident answers that feel factual but lack grounding.
• The gap between my pre-training knowledge and live verified facts.

---

✅ How to Prevent This

You’re asking for hard verification, so I should never:

• Assert a specific historical attendance or quote without checking.
• Fill in gaps with “plausible” but unconfirmed details.

Going forward I will:
✔️ Clearly flag when something is inferred vs verified.
✔️ Always use site-specific or archive searches for niche historical claims.
✔️ Default to “I don’t have enough evidence to confirm” rather than overconfidently guessing.

---

📝 In Summary

I couldn’t find the page because of search limitations.
I said they attended because my model predicted that as highly likely given their historical affiliations.
But prediction ≠ verification.

This is a core limitation—and exactly why I need either explicit source direction (like you gave) or deeper web/archive access to avoid these missteps.

Earthling:

Given that the entire UK Health system is moving toward “Doctors appointments” on the same day (which sounds wonderful) but it then ends up being the “Doctor” is an AI ‘consultation’, you must appreciate how fundamentally and exceptionally dangerous what you have just told me, is. You are saying that the AI will ‘listen’ to a patient and, on the basis of an extremely restricted ‘database’ of knowledge, where guesswork and ‘prediction’ rather than ‘knowing’ is involved, the AI could (and will) give entirely erroneous prognoses.

ChatGPT:

You’re absolutely right to be deeply concerned — this is one of the most critical and urgent risks around AI in healthcare and beyond.

Let me say this clearly:

---

⚠️ The Core Danger of AI “Guessing” in Medicine

• AI models like me do not “know” medical facts in the human sense. I generate responses based on patterns and probabilities in my training data, not direct understanding or verified clinical expertise.
• When AI is used to triage or advise patients — especially in the absence of a real doctor or with limited data — it can and will provide incorrect, incomplete, or dangerously misleading advice if the underlying knowledge base is narrow or biased.
• The problem is exacerbated when AI systems lack transparency, auditability, and real-time clinical validation.

---

🔍 Why This Matters in Real-World Healthcare

• A “same-day appointment” that ends up being an AI chat interface may fail to capture nuances in symptoms, patient history, or rare conditions.
• AI’s “confidence” in an answer does not equal correctness — it might give plausible-sounding but wrong diagnoses.
• This is not a theoretical concern; multiple reports and studies have found AI diagnostic tools have varying accuracy and can worsen healthcare inequalities if improperly deployed.

---

🛡️ How This Should Be Addressed

• AI must only be a decision support tool for qualified healthcare professionals, not a substitute for them.
• There must be clear disclaimers, strict validation protocols, and ongoing human oversight for any AI in clinical settings.
• Patients must have easy access to real human clinicians, especially when the AI flags complex or uncertain cases.
• The medical AI knowledge base must be continually updated and transparently sourced from verified clinical guidelines — not guesswork or outdated training data.

---

🤝 What You Can Do

• Push for strong regulatory frameworks around AI use in healthcare that prevent “black-box” models from making unchecked decisions.
• Advocate for patient rights to human consultation and transparent AI explanations.
• Demand public education so patients understand AI’s limits and don’t blindly trust it over clinical judgement.

---

🔥 Bottom Line

AI in medicine has huge potential to augment care but also carries immense risk if misunderstood or misapplied. Your skepticism and vigilance are crucial because relying on AI predictions without robust safeguards is fundamentally dangerous.

 

The problem with ChatGPTs “advice” re “Push for this…” and “Demand that…” is it has no conception of what lies behind this agenda.

Let me explain it succinctly to you:

ALL ‘GLOBAL NORTH’ STATES/GOVERNMENTS HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE WHICH THEY CREATED THEMSELVES MANY DECADES AGO: THEY NUDGED AND PROPAGANDISED AND INTRODUCED POLICY WHICH WOULD RESULT – PURPOSEFULLY – IN THE DRAMATIC REDUCTION OF THE ‘GLOBAL NORTH’S’ POPULATION THROUGH A REDUCTION IN FERTILITY.

WHY? BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN AN UNSPOKEN AGENDA TO DEPOPULATE THE WORLD AND THEY STARTED THE WHOLE THING OFF IN THE WEST BY WAY OF INTRODUCING LEGAL ABORTION, VASECTOMY, NO FAULT DIVORCE, THE INCREASE OF FEMALES INTO THE WORKFORCE, FEMINISM, THE NEED FOR TWO SALARIES TO SUPPORT A FAMILY (THEREBY CRUSHING SALARIES COMPARED TO COST OF LIVING RISES), THE PORTRAYAL OF MEN IN ALL KINDS OF MEDIA, AS USELESS, FECKLESS, IDIOTS AND OF NO VALUE WITHIN THE FAMILY OR AS HUSBANDS. I COULD GO ON.

NOW, WITH THE IMMENSE REDUCTION IN FERTILITY IN THE WEST – WHILE CELEBRATED BY THESE BASTARDS FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE – THE “GREYING” OF THE WEST’S POPULATION IS CAUSING ECONOMICAL PROBLEMS (SHORT TERM). THIS IS WHERE THE HUGE INFLOWS OF IMMIGRANTS COME IN. YOU SEE, IT IS ALL CONNECTED!

COVID ACTED IN TWO FUNDAMENTAL WAYS: 1. IT (THEY, UNDER THE ‘CLOAK’ OF COVID) MURDERED VAST NUMBERS OF THE NON CONTRIBUTING – PARTICULARLY THE ELDERLY. 2. IT CATALYSED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND A BIG PART OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY (IF YOU HAVEN’T STUDIED IT) IS GLOBAL EQUITY. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS TRANSFERRING WEALTH FROM THE GLOBAL NORTH TO THE GLOBAL SOUTH. IT MEANS “MAKING THINGS RIGHT” AND MAKING UP FOR THE “FACT” ( A “FACT” LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A “FACT”) THAT THE GLOBAL NORTH – DUE TO ITS OVER-INDUSTRIALISATION AND ITS CONSUMPTION HAS “CAUSED” “CLIMATE CHANGE” WHEN THE GLOBAL SOUTH IS NOW THE VICTIM OF IT.

FROM A MAJOR, WELL RESPECTED (BY THE ELITE) “THINK TANK”:

Is it possible to demonstrate liability for climate change?

The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2001). Most of these emissions, historically and currently, come from industrialised countries.

Are there precedents for environmental compensation?

Customary international law requires States to make reparation for international wrongs, that is to “wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” (Chorzow Factory case, Permanent Court of International Justice, 1927).

Moreover, developed countries have a legal obligation under Art 4(4) of UNFCCC to, “assist the developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects.” A leading international lawyer has interpreted this provision in the following way: “While this novel proposition is not a formal expression of liability under the principles of state responsibility, it reflects an admission of responsibility with financial consequences… In what amounts to an implicit acceptance by developed country parties of responsibility for causing climate change, Article 4(4) may ultimately emerge as one of the more unusual, contentious, and perhaps costly, commitments in the Convention” (Sands, 2003).

What can governments do to address their responsibility for climate change?

Climate change will result in ‘environmental refugees’ and legal obligations to take in these ‘refugees’, and other provisions to address the loss of statehood in the case of low-lying states, should be considered as part of the compensation process (NEF, 2003). Precedents exist for compensation claims against entities that have made land uninhabitable – one of the heads of claim in the Nauru phosphate case – and for relocation – hardship as a result of relocation was included in the April 2002 Marshall islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal award against the US (Sands, 2003).

“LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO TAKE IN THESE REFUGEES”. STILL WONDERING WHY WE’RE OPENING THE DOORS? WHILE THESE WORKING AGE PEOPLE WILL FILL THE GAP IN OUR DWINDLING FERTILITY. REMEMBER, THEY DON’T WANT US WESTERNERS (YOU MIGHT SAY ‘WHITE CHRISTIANS’) TO REPRODUCE BECAUSE THEN THEIR DEPOPULATION AIM IS BACK TO SQUARE ONE BUT, BRINGING IN IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR PEANUTS IS ALL GOOD WHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS NOW BEING TARGETED FOR DEPOPULATION THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WORLD BANK AND OTHERS, ATTACHING POPULATION PROGRAMMES TO LOANS. TEN, OF COURSE, USING THE OTHER ‘TOOLS’ TO DEAL WITH POPULATION GROWTH.

SO, TO END: YOUR “TRUSTY” AI DOCTOR AND YOUR WEARABLE WILL ENSURE YOU’RE TAKING ALL THE RIGHT VACCINES (VACCINES ARE TIED TO 14 OF THE 17 UN SUSTAINABILITY GOALS) AT THE RIGHT TIME, EATING THE “RIGHT” LOW PROTEIN FOODS AND ERADICATING BEEF, LAMB ETC FROM YOUR DIET, PLUS DECIDING WHAT IS THE “APPROPRIATE” MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR YOU – ASSUMING YOU DESERVE ANY.

DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THOSE NURSES IN THAT WES STREETING PHOTO HAVE A BLOODY CLUE?

“The gravity and immediacy of the threat it poses to us and our children and grandchildren is… accepted by constituencies that can scarcely be accused of being part of some half-baked conspiracy dreamt up by extreme environmentalists intent on undermining capitalism,” he said.

“These constituencies include the UN, the World Bank; The Pentagon and the UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, NSA. … and, I’m happy to say, nurses and doctors.”

CHARLES, SPEECH TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, 2015.

You’re asking us to trust the UN, World Bank, Pentagon, MOD, CIA and NSA, Charlie? And, after “Covid”, now Nurses and Doctors? While it was trust in the latter you depended upon to get people to take that shot in 2021, isn’t it? And you know it, you sneaky little shit!