Following Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s recent green foreign policy lecture, the Government appointed a new “climate envoy”, Rachel Kyte. Kyte has occupied a number of positions in the climate wonkosphere: Professor of Politics at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University; Special Representative on Sustainable Energy to UN Secretary-General António Guterres; and a Vice-President of the World Bank. But controversy emerged when it was revealed that Kyte also sits on the advisory board of the Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF) – the philanthropic arm of the AI-powered Quadrature hedge fund. Quadrature had investments in fossil fuels, the Guardian had revealed. And the London-based but Cayman Islands-tax sheltered firm made a whopping £4 million donation to the Labour party, the Telegraph later revealed.
The conspiracy theory doing the rounds, then, is that fossil fuel interests have lobbied Labour to get their woman into a position to influence the Government’s climate policy. On X, buttonhole reporter Michael Crick explained that Kyte is “linked to Quadrature hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands which invests in fossil fuel firms”. Quoting Crick, like some wide game of Chinese Whispers, Owen Jones told his followers that, “Labour got a £4m donations from a hedge fund linked to fossil fuels in the Cayman Islands.” The Soros-funded OpenDemocracy outfit also complained about the party’s new donor: “Labour given £4m from tax haven-based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms.” Socialist Worker’s headline was: “Fossil fuel investors in tax havens fund Starmer.” The National – Scotland’s independence newspaper – focused on the link between Quadrature and Kyte and ran the story on the front page:
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“One of the issues which should have been picked up is these tests work a lot less well in people who are asymptomatic … “
And yet no such fuss has been made about PCR testing and its inaccuracies.
Isn’t there a massive illogicality here regarding broader issue of the general futility of mass testing and ‘asymptomatic’ positives? Or am I missing something.
What you’re seeing is a lot of confirmation bias which happens when the “gold standard” test is flawed.
As in: “The positive result on lateral flow has to be correct because it was confirmed as positive by PCR”
I read somewhere that in the actual design of lateral flow they use PCR to confirm its validity. So in tbe manufacturing of it, PCR is used as a control.
If that is true it adds another layer of fog
Yes, its the PCR test validity that has to be destroyed, its keeping this shit-show alive.
Check out Dr Reiner Feullmich Crimes Against Humanity.
One gets the impression that the author would like to promote PCR over Lateral Flow testing. The claims around asymptomatic transmission are the basis for lockdown. The belief that 33% of the population is walking around feeling perfectly healthy but spreading the disease is outrageous. It must be debunked.
Likely because the lateral flow process cannot be as easily scammed as the PCR process and its made up diagnostic criteria.
I refer to Will Jones’s article above – item 2. The whole lot is a massive scam, operating as a source of cash for some.
I think the answers to my rhetorical question show that we’ve all clocked the scam: PCR testing is more likely to allow manipulation for the next panic, where as LFT might damp it down.
The strategy is childishly transparent, and yet people will fall for it.
Of course, the next casedemic will blow the story of vaccine efficacy out of the water – but 2+2=1 will be the public conclusion.
Of course the truth is that it is the PCR tests that are wildly inaccurate, not the lateral flow tests.
The response from Dr Hopkins sums up the mindset of this government. Referring to highly infectious asymptomatic people, it’s the same tired discredited nonsense every day. I just don’t understand why?
I watched a panel of scientists at Birminghan Uni in ‘Mapping the Virus.’ One of them expressed confidence in LF tests because there were fewer infections among people having them regularly than those testing for the first time. I’m sure the Uni will post this hour and a quarter seminar. It’s worth watching as these are research scientists superior to Whitty & Vallance. They also seem obsessed by variants-as were questioners, and oblivious to the cots of NPI’s or their (in)effectiveness.
Worth reading Richard Tice’s article in the Conservative Woman
https://conservativewoman.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6378530ea3dde9537bada99f7&id=6ca47b21d4&e=b567db0fed
Did Mike Yeadon not say months ago that the only way out of this whole thing is to stop mass testing?