Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 382
August 11, 2023
Renowned climate scientist blasts ‘anti-capitalist’ climate agenda, ‘manufactured’ consensus
Judith CurryYouTube screenshot
(LifeSiteNews) — A renowned climatologist has said that the alleged scientific consensus on “climate change” is a “manufactured consensus” perpetuated by the United Nations (U.N.).
In an interview with libertarian journalist and pundit John Stossel, climatologist Judith Curry said that the “manufactured consensus” existed because a scientist would achieve “fame and fortune” for exaggerating the risks associated with “climate change.”
Curry, who formerly served as the chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, admitted that she used to spread alarmism about “climate change” herself.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “And so, this was picked up by the media. Alarmists said, ‘Oh, here’s the way to do it: Tie extreme weather events to global warming!’”
“So, this hysteria is your fault!” Stossel told Curry.
“Well, sort of. Not really. They would have picked up on it anyways,” she replied.
Curry said that she became a darling of the mainstream media due to her study tying the alleged increase in intense hurricanes to global warming. She was “flown all over the place to meet with politicians, and give these talks and [received] lots of media attention.”
“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists, and I was treated like a rockstar,” Curry recalled.
When researchers pointed out incongruities in her research, namely years with fewer hurricanes, Curry investigated these claims and realized that her critics had a point.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability,” she told Stossel.
The journalist seemed pleasantly surprised about Curry’s integrity and willingness to be corrected. “So you are the unusual researcher who looks at the criticism of your paper and actually concluded they had a point.”
Curry said that the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which internal emails from research facilities showed that scientists were trying to hide controversial data, showed “a lot of really ugly things,” like “avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests” and “trying to get journal editors fired from their job” if they disagreed with the mainstream “climate change” paradigm.
Stossel said the Climategate scandal made Curry realize that there is “a climate-change industry set up to reward alarmism.”
“The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program,” she recalled.
Curry said that U.N. officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”
According to the climatologist, that was the reason that the U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming,” instead “the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” she said.
“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
Curry explained that to receive public funding, scientists must follow the climate alarmism narrative.
“The announcements of opportunity for funding are really tied to assuming that there are dangerous impacts [of climate change],” Curry stated.
“So the researchers aren’t stupid; they know what they need to say to get funding?” Stossel asked.
“Exactly,” Curry replied.
The former faculty head recalled that “about ten years ago,” the editor of the prestigious academic journal Science, Dr. Marcia McNutt, “wrote this political rant about ‘we need to stop emissions now,’” in which she stated that “The time for debate has ended.”
McNutt now serves as the President of the National Academy of Science.
“What kind of message does that give?” Curry asked. “’Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review.’ If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”
“That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex,” Stossel said.
“Why don’t other scientists who recognize the nonsense push back?” the journalist asked Curry.
“If they work at a university, it’s going to be very uncomfortable for them,” she responded.
Curry said that she could no longer get a job at a university after her stint at the Georgia Institute of Technology because she was labeled a “climate denier.”
That is why the climatologist started her own weather and climate forecasting company called Climate Forecast Applications Network. Curry also publishes articles on her blog and has written multiple books, including her latest work, “Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response.”
[…]
After bashing it for 3 years and watching millions die, FDA now admits Ivermectin legitimate treatment for Covid-19
LeoHohmann.com
Just how corrupt is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the entire biomedical security state apparatus that peddled fear of Covid and said the only hope of defeating the virus was to wait for a new technologically advanced “vaccine” — the same “vaccine” that proved unsafe and ineffective?
We are talking about a corruption that is beyond the capacity of many Americans to comprehend.
The FDA, Fauci, the CDC, Biden, the entire U.S. medical system and the corporate media mind-controlled millions of Americans into believing that using the well-known anti-microbial drug Ivermectin was a laughingstock perpetuated by quacks and conspiracy theorists.
They kicked to the curb any physician who sought to prescribe Ivermectin to his or her patients infected with Covid. Despite the fact that Ivermectin has been FDA-approved for use in humans for decades, this same deep-state apparatus made it sound like Ivermectin was just a “horse drug” that stupid people were dangerously ingesting in a failed attempt to ward off Covid.
They mocked and derided us. Telling us we were using “horse paste” that was meant solely for livestock, when it was a known fact that Ivermectin, while used to protect equines and bovines from various viral infections, is just as effective in humans.
Now comes the bombshell report we’ve all been waiting for, exposing who the real quacks have been all along, detailing how they suppressed the administering of a well-known, very effective drug during the heat of the Covid pandemic that could have saved millions of lives.
The Epoch Times reports that doctors are now free to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, two years after millions were killed by doctors listening to Fauci and the FDA’s advice not to treat them with a known effective drug.
It all came out this week in litigation against the FDA.
A lawyer representing the FDA said “FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID.”
That lawyer is Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA. She made her comments during oral arguments on August 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
The government is defending the FDA’s repeated exhortations to people to not take Ivermectin for COVID-19, including a post on Twitter that said “Stop it.”
Three doctors brought the case against the FDA, alleging the federal agency unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with its repeated statements blasting and denigrating the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid patients.
Why did it take this long, you ask? Because a federal judge dismissed the case on December 6, 2022, prompting an appeal.
Jared Kelson, representing the three doctors, told the appeals court:
“The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no.”
The FDA on August 21, 2021, wrote on Twitter:
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
The post, which linked to an FDA page that says people shouldn’t use Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, went viral.
In other statements, the FDA said Ivermectin “isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19” and “Q: Should I take Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.”
The plaintiffs are Drs. Paul Marik, Mary Bowden, and Robert Apter. They say they were professionally harmed by the FDA’s statements, including being terminated over efforts to prescribe Ivermectin to patients.
Other doctors were threatened with having their licenses revoked if they prescribed Ivermectin for Covid.
The Epoch Times article cites Dr. Marik, chairman of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, as noting that a number of studies support using Ivermectin against COVID-19, as the FDA itself has acknowledged.
Federal law enables the FDA to provide information, such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice, attorney Jared Kelson said.
A version of the drug for animals is available, but Ivermectin is fully approved by the FDA for human use against diseases caused by parasites.
Honold, the FDA lawyer, argued that the FDA didn’t require anyone to do anything or to prohibit anyone from doing anything.
“What about when it said, ‘No, stop it’?” Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, on the panel that is hearing the appeal, asked.
“Why, isn’t that a command? If you were in English class, they would say that was a command.”
Honold described the statements as “merely quips.”
So they were just playing with us. They were just making quips, playing with our minds and trying to influence us not to use Ivermectin, but they weren’t “requiring” us to do anything.
Remember that next time you hear anything come out of the FDA, or any government agency for that matter.
Below is just one of the hundreds of corporate media reports mocking Ivermectin as a drug “intended for barnyard animals,” and citing the FDA as the authority warning Americans not to take it.
Fauci’s hands are also full of blood. He was routinely bashing Ivermectin as a viable treatment for Covid during the peak of the pandemic. In an interview with CNN’s Chuck Todd, Fauci also said, “Don’t do it.”
The interview appeared totally staged. Todd phrased the question this way: “Cases are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called Ivermectin to treat coronavirus. What would you tell someone who is considering taking that drug?”
“Don’t do it. There is no evidence whatsoever that that works and it could potentially have toxicity because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick, and there’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”
The reason Fauci, the FDA and the entire mainstream corporate media had to destroy the credibility of Ivermectin was because they had the real toxic drug — mRNA jabs — ready and waiting to be deployed, the one that indeed had “no clinical evidence” of efficacy or safety.
We must also remember that hospitals only received their bonus cash payouts if they used the vaccines and an expensive new drug called Remdesivir, which in many cases led to kidney organ failure. And many states barred pharmacies from filling prescriptions for Ivermectin even when doctors prescribed it.
These were crimes against humanity on a scale the world has never seen.
As a result, millions died.
[…]
Two-Thirds of Appendectomies May Be Unnecessary
Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glanceAppendectomy is the most common emergency surgery performed in the U.S. Many doctors will even suggest prophylactic removal of the appendix when you’re having some other abdominal surgery doneWith the help of white blood cells known as innate lymphoid cells, the appendix acts as a reservoir for beneficial bacteriaOnce your body has successfully fought and rid itself of a gut infection, the bacteria emerge from the biofilm of the appendix to recolonize your intestinesResearch suggests nearly two-thirds of patients with appendicitis can be successfully treated with antibiotics aloneIn an earlier study, only two of 77 participants who received antibiotics ended up requiring surgery within 24 hours, and only one-third of participants needed an appendectomy after being discharged, due to lack of improvementEditor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 17, 2018.
You’ve probably heard that your appendix is a useless organ, an artifact from our ancient past when early humans had to digest tree bark and other fibrous materials.1 However, modern medical science has again proven your body does not contain superfluous organs that serve no useful function.
Unfortunately, the idea that your appendix is little more than a nuisance and potential health risk has led to the routine removal of this organ. Many doctors will even suggest prophylactic removal of the appendix when you’re having some other abdominal surgery done. As noted in a 2017 paper:2
“Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery performed in the USA. Removal of a noninflamed appendix during unrelated abdominal surgery (prophylactic or incidental appendectomy) can prevent the downstream risks and costs of appendicitis. It is unknown whether such a strategy could be cost saving for the health system.”
Based on hypothetical patient cohorts aged 18 to 80, the researchers concluded that people under the age of 30 could save about $130 over their lifetime by undergoing prophylactic appendectomy during other elective abdominal surgery. However, considering the potential benefits of keeping your appendix, saving $130 over a lifetime doesn’t seem very good value proposition.
Your Appendix Has an Immune FunctionYour appendix is found in the lower right portion of your abdomen. This small, slimy, finger-shaped organ is attached to the cecum, a small pouch that’s part of the intestines (the cecum is considered to be the beginning of the large intestine) and is part of your gastrointestinal tract.3
According to scientists in France and Australia, your appendix actually plays an important role in your immunity. Published in Nature Immunology, their study showed that the appendix — with the help of white blood cells known as innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) — works as a reservoir for beneficial bacteria (probiotics), which are essential for good gut health and healing from infections.4
When certain diseases (or use of antibiotics) eliminate the healthy bacteria in your gut, the appendix works as a storage unit for some of these probiotics. The researchers say that these findings should make people rethink whether the appendix is “irrelevant” to their health.
Once your body has successfully fought and rid itself of the infection, the bacteria emerge from the biofilm of the appendix to recolonize your gut, bringing it back to a healthy state. According to Gabrielle Belz, a professor at Melbourne’s Walter and Eliza Hall Institute:5
“We’ve found that ILCs may help the appendix to potentially reseed ‘good’ bacteria within the microbiome — or community of bacteria — in the body. A balanced microbiome is essential for recovery from bacterial threats to gut health, such as food poisoning.”
Despite such findings, other research6 suggests prophylactic appendectomy “is ethically justifiable, as there are few complications,” and “allows early detection of malignancies.” In this case, 10 cases of cancer were found as a result of prophylactic appendectomy on 173 patients.
In the end, it may be an issue of personal choice after considering the pros and cons of removing this organ. Personally, I believe having the ability to repopulate your gut with beneficial bacteria after infection is a significant health benefit that I would be reluctant to eliminate unless absolutely necessary. And, research suggests surgery may not even be necessary in most cases of appendicitis either.
Two-Thirds of Appendicitis Cases Do Not Require SurgeryAccording to a Finnish study,7,8,9,10 nearly two-thirds of patients with appendicitis can be successfully treated with antibiotics alone. In the U.S., an estimated 300,000 appendectomies are performed each year, which means some 199,800 people undergo surgery unnecessarily.
Not that antibiotics are without their side effects in damaging the microbiome, but it appears to be the lesser of two evils in this setting. Overall, the lifetime risk of appendicitis in the U.S. is 1 in 15.11 As reported by Live Science:12
“The study looked at data from more than 250 adults in Finland who had appendicitis … and were treated with antibiotics. This group was compared with another 270 adults who had surgery for appendicitis. All of the participants were followed for five years.
At the end of the study, nearly two-thirds of people who received antibiotics (64 percent) were considered ‘successfully treated,’ meaning they didn’t have another attack of appendicitis. The other 36 percent eventually needed surgery to remove their appendix, but none of them experienced harmful outcomes from the delay …
It’s important to note that all patients in the study had uncomplicated appendicitis, meaning their appendix had not burst, which was confirmed with a CT scan. (Patients with a burst appendix would indeed need surgery.)”
In an accompanying editorial,13 deputy editor of JAMA, Dr. Edward Livingston, noted that these findings “dispel the notion that uncomplicated acute appendicitis is a surgical emergency.”
Interestingly, of the 100 patients in the antibiotic group that later went on to have surgery anyway, seven of them actually had no evidence of appendicitis at the time of surgery — a finding that hints at underlying skepticism and an ingrained idea that it’s better to just take the appendix out to be done with it once and for all.
Pros and Cons of Antibiotic TreatmentThe antibiotic treatment group also had fewer complications than the surgical intervention group — about 1 in 4 surgical patients suffered some sort of postoperative complication, ranging from abdominal pain to surgical wound infections — and those who received antibiotics took on average 11 fewer days off from work (surgical patients took on average 22 days off from work).
Cost is also a factor, as surgery is far more expensive than a round of antibiotics. In this study, antibiotic treatment consisted of intravenous antibiotics for three days, followed by oral antibiotics for seven days.
On the downside, antibiotic treatment for suspected appendicitis could exacerbate the emergence of drug-resistant superbugs, so wanton use of antibiotics is not necessarily ideal either. Dr. Paulina Salminen, a surgeon at the University of Turku in Finland who led the study, told The New York Times:14
[…]
This isn’t the first time researchers have found antibiotics can do the job well enough that surgery becomes unnecessary. A 2014 study15 published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons reviewed 77 uncomplicated cases of acute appendicitis that met certain criteria.
Here, 30 of the patients were given intravenous antibiotics for 24 hours and oral antibiotics for a week instead of surgery. Those whose condition did not improve after the first 24 hours had their appendix removed surgically at that time.
Of the 77 participants, only two required surgery within 24 hours, while a third needed an appendectomy after being discharged due to lack of improvement. However, none of the patients experienced complications.
The other 27 participants who received antibiotics missed fewer days of school and went back to their normal activities much sooner than those who underwent an appendectomy.
Nationwide Children’s Hospital professor of surgery and senior study author Dr. Katherine J. Deans said,16 “It’s so dogmatic to operate for appendicitis that it requires a huge paradigm shift. But there are choices. It may be safe to wait.”
[…]
Natural Treatments for AppendicitisCastor oil pack — This can help relieve the appendiceal blockage and reduce inflammation. To prepare this, simply fold a large cloth, pour 2 tablespoons of castor oil on it and then apply it to your abdomen while lying down.
You can repeat this three times a week for two or three months. Taking castor oil orally may also help relieve constipation and improve bowel movements.
Ginger — This root can reduce inflammation and pain, while alleviating vomiting and nausea. Drink fresh ginger tea twice or thrice daily or massage ginger oil on your abdomen for a few minutes daily.Garlic — It’s a potent anti-inflammatory that can alleviate inflammation and pain. Eat two to three raw cloves on an empty stomach per day.Fenugreek seeds — They help prevent the intestinal waste and excess mucus from accumulating, which can reduce the risk of the problem becoming severe. Fenugreek seeds also help alleviate pain.Fresh lemon — Mixed with a small amount of honey, lemon helps prevent indigestion and constipation, relieves pain and boosts your immunity.Basil — It helps bring down the fever that may come with appendicitis. It’s also great for relieving indigestion and intestinal gas. Boil a handful of fresh basil leaves with a teaspoon of grated ginger and then drink the concoction twice a day for two days.Vegetable juice — A mixture of beets, cucumber and carrot juice may be helpful for patients with appendicitis.Fasting as Treatment for Uncomplicated Subacute AppendicitisA case study24 presented by the TrueNorth Health Center also demonstrates how fasting may address appendicitis without further drug intervention. In this case, a 46-year-old man with uncomplicated appendicitis — confirmed through a sonogram — refused surgical and drug treatment, which led the doctors to prescribe medically supervised water-only fasting for seven days. At one-year follow-up, the patient reported no return of the abdominal pain over the year. He had resumed full exercise and had even completed a triathlon …
[…]
Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/08/11/appendectomy-alternatives.aspx
August 10, 2023
New Study Confirms Link Between Gut Microbes and Autism
Research reported in Nature Neuroscience strongly links the gut microbiome to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), identifying four bacterial species tied to ASD and fueling hopes of microbiome-targeted treatments. But experts caution against expectations of a quick cure.
The connection between the gut microbiome and behavioral health has been the subject of intense investigation. But even when the link appears indisputable, associating the microbiome’s thousands of bacterial, yeast, fungal and virus species to specific symptoms or diseases may be challenging.Now, results from a study reported in Nature Neuroscience in June support the connection between the microbiome and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and provide clues about the microbes involved.
These data may eventually lead to “natural interventions” that promote a healthy microbiome and, it is hoped, relieve some of the burden of ASD on those affected, according to the study authors.
The difficulty with analyzing many studies
The authors of the Nature Neuroscience paper reviewed results from more than 70 studies investigating the microbiome-ASD connection.
A major problem with drawing conclusions from a large number of studies is that the sheer diversity of study designs, aims, methods and even investigators raises the possibility that the analysis will compare “apples to oranges.”
One paper may look at kindergarten-age girls while another studies adolescent boys. Some investigations may include an intervention — requiring subjects to eat certain foods or take a drug or dietary supplement, for example — while others are purely observational.
Additionally, not all “microbiome” studies focus on the same microorganisms or use the same analytical methods to find them. One study may look at proteins generated by bacteria while another measures genes from yeast. Both studies qualify as microbiome investigations but their conclusions may not be comparable.
This is a common problem with microbiome research as there are potentially thousands of species involved and a dozen ways to detect and characterize them.
An innovative approach
In the case of the Nature Neuroscience paper, lead researcher Gaspar Taroncher-Oldenberg, Ph.D., and his team solved this dilemma by using an innovative study design first described in 2019 by researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, and Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.
The method involves two steps: identifying a factor common to both data sets, and comparing those data (and assigning their relative significance) based on that relationship.
Take as an example a hypothetical review of studies on the effect of diet on the ability to hit a baseball. Let’s say half the studies measured protein consumption and the other half tallied the number of meals subjects consumed per day.
Both groups qualify as “diet” studies but they are not directly comparable because protein consumption and eating schedule are totally unrelated.
However, if it were possible to relate protein and meal frequency to a third factor that is easily measured and critical to hitting a baseball — say, visual acuity — it then becomes possible to compare the results.
In the case of the Nature Neuroscience study, researchers connected seemingly unrelated studies to the known, well-established connections between bacterial species and the biological “pathways” or mechanisms through which ASD develops.
They then used the strength of those associations to develop a system for ranking and comparing microbial species for their potential involvement in ASD.
In all, they drew data from 25 studies on individual microbiome species, dietary patterns, bacterial metabolites, inflammatory proteins and alterations in brain chemistry associated with ASD.
They found the strongest associations to ASD in the chemical profiles of bacterial metabolites consisting of fats, carbohydrates and protein breakdown products. Four bacterial species were primarily involved: Prevotella, Bifidobacterium, Desulfovibrio and Bacteroides.
The authors also noted “a strong association between temporal changes in microbiome composition and ASD phenotypes,” meaning that changes in a person’s microbiome can affect the type and severity of ASD symptoms.
It’s probably not all ‘in your genes’
ASD, which involves mild-to-severe impairments in cognition, behavior and communication, affects approximately 2.8% of American children. Its occurrence in boys is almost 4 times higher than in girls (4.3% versus 1.1%).
Parents usually notice symptoms by age 2, and as children mature, their cognitive and behavioral deficits often affect their performance in school or work and their ability to socialize.
Distinguishing vaccine injury from genetic and other developmental disorders has been difficult for a variety of reasons. Funding priorities and technology trends (like using knockout mice — mice in which researchers have inactivated, or “knocked out,” an existing gene by replacing it or disrupting it with an artificial piece of DNA) have resulted in a strong emphasis on investigating potential genetic vulnerabilities related to ASD.
So far, more than 100 genes have been linked to the disorder. However, these observations come with the caveat that many of the same genes are implicated in other neurologic processes or in broader childhood development — so the preponderance of studies looking for genetic causes for ASD needs to be understood in this context.
One previous study looked directly at abnormalities in brain structure for clues. Such abnormalities are subtle and, according to Taroncher-Oldenberg, their causal relationship with ASD has not been established.
“One comorbidity that has been linked to ASD with high confidence is the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, such as constipation, diarrhea or abdominal bloating” even though “causal insights” have not been clear, wrote Taroncher-Oldenberg.
But this evidence, along with the observation that the severity of GI symptoms often correlates with ASD severity, makes this idea a reasonable starting point, and the basis of current investigations on the “gut-brain axis” and ASD.
The original article in The Lancet — which was retracted — connecting the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) to ASD looked specifically at 12 children who presented with both acute onset ASD and severe gut symptomatology.
The gut-brain axis is a bidirectional chemical communication channel between a person’s digestive and nervous systems, particularly the brain. Communication occurs primarily through the release of chemicals by the brain and the trillions of microbes comprising the gut microbiome.
In addition to ASD, disruptions in the gut-brain axis have been associated with anxiety, obesity, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease.
Gut microbes a factor, not a cause
Although the association between the gut microbiome and ASD is strong, one cannot conclude, based on the evidence, that certain bacteria definitively cause autism.
Many possible contributors to the ASD-bacteria link remain uninvestigated. For example, children with ASD could simply be fussy eaters and be less likely to consume nutrients that promote a healthy microbiome. Their diets alone or some other unknown factors — or both — may be responsible for their behavioral problems.
Future investigations should also look into the possibility that ASD is the cause, and not the effect, of microbiome issues.
Other possible factors confounding the ASD-microbiome link are differences in study population demographics — including number of subjects recruited, race, age or sex — and that studies often collect data only from one point in time.
Since the characteristics of both ASD and the gut microbiome change over time, connections between microbial populations and the disorder are often difficult to pin down.
Taroncher-Oldenberg commented on this point in a July interview in FoodNavigator:
“So you don’t really know what came before, or what came after. All you know is that while you’re having the symptoms or whatever it is you’re measuring phenotypically, you know that you have this microbiome versus that microbiome composition. That’s all you know.
“So it’s very hard to infer any kind of mechanistic insights from this, other than to say there is a difference in the microbiome.”
“Phenotypically” refers to the observable, diagnostically-relevant symptoms of ASD.
Phenotypic variations between the sexes are also common. Taroncher-Oldenberg’s study corrected for both age and sex.
One problem this study could not address was the “time point” factor. Significant changes in symptoms are evident as subjects age, from infancy through their teenage years.
Taroncher-Oldenberg told FoodNavigator:
“In order for us to know if any of those signals were relevant or what they could mean, therapeutically or just in terms of disease, mechanistically, we needed to ‘ground-truth’ our results with longitudinal data, that had five or six data points over time that correlated with some kind of change in the autistic phenotype.”
The significance of this study lies in the potential to improve ASD symptoms in children or perhaps, should the brain-microbiome connection prove causative, even cure ASD.
Although Taroncher-Oldenburg dismissed the idea of an easy cure, his group did re-analyze data from a two-year, 18-subject open-label (i.e., without a control group) fecal matter transplant study with children with ASD.
Fecal transplants involve giving people beneficial bacteria they lack by having them ingest a capsule containing a small quantity of stool from a healthy donor.
The technique has been used, with positive results, to treat dangerous bacterial infections of the GI tract, Type 2 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease.
In the study, the children were first purged of resident gut bacteria through a two-week antibiotic treatment and a bowel cleanse, followed by daily fecal dosing for eight weeks.
Based on one common measure of ASD symptoms, the Childhood Autism Rating Scale, investigators noted significant improvements that persisted for two years post-treatment.
Taroncher-Oldenberg suggests interventions like fecal transplants “are consistent with a potential role of the microbiome in improving autism symptoms, but how the underlying changes in microbiome composition [are] related to those seen in other studies remains unknown.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/microbiome-gut-brain-axis-autism-spectrum-disorder/
Colorado’s Childhood Immunization Rates Decline as Exemptions Rise
Immunizations among school-age children continue to decline in Colorado, falling below 90% for the second year in a row.
Why it matters: Colorado’s vaccination rates remain among the nation’s lowest, and public health officials are warning parents about the possibility of outbreaks in the upcoming school year.
What to know: The state requires at least six vaccines for students to enter child care and public school, all designed to prevent the spread of measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, and chickenpox. Others, such as influenza and COVID-19, are recommended.
The greatest decrease in rates is among kindergarteners. MMR coverage this coming school year is 86.8%, the lowest level since the 2017-18 school year, state data shows.What’s happening: More parents are exempting their children from the required vaccines, up to 4% at the kindergarten level, on religious or medical grounds
The intrigue: Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat who opposes vaccine mandates, is at the center of the debate.
He worked to defeat a bill in 2019 that would have made it harder for parents to claim an exemption from required immunizations. Instead, he signed an executive order to increase education and study the issue.[…]
Via https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2023/08/09/colorado-immunization-rates-school-children-decline
Kadlec Throws Fauci Under the Bus
Robert Malone
On July 28, 2023, Weekend Australian Magazine published a bombshell report based on an exclusive interview with Dr. Robert (Bob) Kadlec, the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) who served under Donald Trump. Basically, the subtext of the interview can be summarized as “it was all Tony’s fault, not mine.”To many readers this may seem like just more Washington, DC Kabuki theater with a side order of limited hangout (much like the prior Vanity Fair article in which Kadlec provided a generous scoop of spin with a topping of CYA). Personally, I find this whole “inside the Beltway” rush to deflect blame for the gross “public health” mismanagement and rampant lying during the COVIDcrisis slightly amusing, in a twisted sort of way, but definitely popcorn worthy.[…]
Before we dive into the substance of the accusations thrown and assertions made by Dr. Kadlec regarding his longstanding close colleague Dr. Fauci, allow me a moment to introduce Dr. Kadlec, who is one particularly stereotypic example of the Deep State intelligence community denizens who have haunted (and directed) the US “Biodefense” Enterprise for decades. Please see Head of the Hydra: The Rise of Robert Kadlec printed by The Last American Vagabound for more salacious details.
[…]
In my experience, “Bob” Kadlec is relatively quiet and circumspect but quite willing to invoke the Lord God during public presentations, and I have always believed him (without direct evidence) to be a longstanding and high status member of the US “Intelligence Community.” During the Trump administration, in his position as ASPR, Dr. Kadlec reported to the attorney, businessman, lobbyist, and former pharmaceutical executive HHS Secretary Alex Azar, who in turn reported to Mr. Trump.
The notorious (now retired) CIA agent (“DARPAs’ Man in Wuhan”) Dr. Michael Callahan reported directly to Dr. Kadlec throughout the Trump-era aspect of the COVIDcrisis, and I recall Michael frantically speaking of the need to protect Kadlec after the husband of BARDA director Dr. Rick Bright went to the Los Angeles Times to complain of unfair treatment at the hands of Kadlec (who was his direct boss) and then Rick filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit on his way out the revolving door to a cushy job with the Rockefeller Institute. What a tangled web we weave. Like I said at the outset of this essay, lots of “inside the beltway” Kabuki theater wrapped up around all of this.
In any case, as far as I am concerned, Bob Kadlec criticizing Tony Fauci for duplicity and mismanagement of the COVIDcrisis is likely to land somewhere between the pot calling the kettle black and a sophisticated, coordinated disinformation campaign intended to distract the public from the sins of the CIA, its surrogates and offshore “five eyes” intelligence allies. In other words yet another limited hangout designed to distract the gullible in Congress as well as the general public – here and abroad.
So, with that lengthy prelude and context demonstrating my clear bias and general “A plague a’ both your houses!” attitude (Mercutio to Romeo, Shakespeare, for heavens sake), please allow me to highlight some of the bombs which Dr. Kadlec is lobbing over in Dr. Fauci’s general direction (with thanks to Will Jones of the “Brownstone” authors group who originally found this gem of a story in the Aussie press).
Oh yeah, it turns out that the Weekend Australian Magazine has been running circles around US Corporate media for quite a while (I know, … a low bar), and has previously documented (in 2021!) that the National Institutes of Health and other US agencies funded 65 scientific projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology over the past decade, many involving risky research on bat coronaviruses.
America’s top infectious diseases adviser, Anthony Fauci, deliberately decided to downplay suspicions from scientists that Covid-19 came from a laboratory to protect his reputation and deflect from the risky coronavirus research his agency had funded, according to his boss, one of the most senior US health officials during the pandemic.
In an exclusive interview, Robert Kadlec – former assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the US Department of Health – told The Weekend Australian that he, Dr Fauci and National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins privately discussed how to “turn down the temperature” on accusations against China in the early days of the pandemic while they were trying to encourage Beijing to co-operate and share a sample of the virus.
“I think Tony Fauci was trying to protect his institution and his own reputation from the possibility that his agency was funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers who, beyond the scope of the grants received from the National Institutes of Health, may have been working with People’s Liberation Army researchers on defensive coronavirus vaccines,” Dr Kadlec said.
“I think it’s evident from his later released emails (obtained via Freedom of Information requests) that he had more sense of what his institute had funded at that moment. This was a reputational risk to him and his institute and certainly he probably sided with the international scientists that believed that false or unsubstantiated accusations could have a chilling effect on scientific collaboration between the western world and China.”
Dr Kadlec, in his first ever media interview, added: “We think vaccine research resulted in the pandemic – that vaccine research was the proximate cause.” In an extraordinary admission, Dr Kadlec said they decided to try to encourage a group of leading international scientists to calm down speculation on the origins of the virus.
The scientists held a phone call on February 1, 2020, in which they discussed concerns that SARS-CoV-2 looked like it may have been genetically engineered. “When we talked about this in advance of that call, he (Fauci) would just try and see if he could get the scientists to take the temperature down, turn the rhetoric down. to at least find, we’re going to look into this but we don’t know,” Dr Kadlec said.
“We decided to engage our national experts to look at this, the National Academy of Sciences,” he said. “It would take time to figure out what was going on. We were trying to prevent people from saying this was a bioweapon when we didn’t really know. That was my intent. It was Dr Fauci’s idea to see if he could get international scientists to examine the origins in a similar fashion. The object was to prevent speculation and turn the temperature down. There was something that could be said to turn the temperature of rhetoric down and avoid the wild speculation, of a bioweapon, that had already started at that point in time.”
“Their paper did result in casting the die for what would then be the international scientific response going forward,” he said. “I found it really odd that in light of the now revealed private musings of some of the scientists indicated the sequence looked unusual, that the authors decided to draft a letter as an opinion piece.”
“Many people were confused or mistaken by what they wrote as more of a peer-reviewed paper. Their initial opinion was likely shaded by their personal professional equities or the belief that what was going on in the US – statements by political leaders- could be problematic for world relations for China but also their professional interests in science,” he said.
Gain-of-function research was banned by the Obama administration but lifted during the Trump era. Dr Kadlec says this was at the behest of the NIH. “Francis Collins and Fauci both had a similar world view which was scientists know best and there should be few restrictions on research,” he said.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance drew up a proposal for grant funding for coronavirus research, which international scientists now believe could be the “blueprint” of Covid-19. Dr Kadlec chaired a committee to authorise whether gain-of-function could proceed. The proposal from the Wuhan institute was bouncing around US Government agencies, in search of funding, but it never went through his committee. “It shows you the fallibility or vulnerability of the oversight system,” he said.
Dr Fauci has denied his agency funded gain-of-function research, but Dr Kadlec said this wasn’t true. “It’s evident NIH supported research that has the potential for, and it at least one case resulted in gain of function,” he said.
Then Sharri Markson drops the big one, which is completely consistent with the emerging story line now cautiously creeping through an Overton window. Said window having been well and truly jammed open regarding the central role of the CIA and Western intelligence community in its mismanagement of the COVIDcrisis.
The full extent of those suspicions is now laid bare in emails subpoenaed by US congress and published in recent weeks. In those emails, some scientists discussed the “shit show” that would eventuate if anyone serious accused China of, even accidentally, starting the pandemic. They also discussed the impact such an accusation would have on scientific research and international relations. But, publicly, they insisted the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory leak was a conspiracy and authored a paper published in Nature Medicine, that argued SARSCov-2 was almost certainly a natural virus. Dr Kadlec acknowledges the power of that paper, titled the Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2, as becoming the official word that a laboratory leak was a conspiracy theory. “Their paper did result in casting the die for what would then be the international scientific response going forward,” he said. “I found it really odd that in light of the now revealed private musings of some of the scientists indicated the sequence looked unusual, that the authors decided to draft a letter as an opinion piece. “Many people were confused or mistaken by what they wrote as more of a peer reviewed paper.
Basically, Tony Fauci lied, and people died; lives, families, children’s education, careers, businesses and whole economies were destroyed. The rich got richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class was decimated. And Klaus Schwab, the WEF (and its “young leader” minions), and totalitarianism flourished.
[…]
Via https://brownstone.org/articles/kadlec-throws-fauci-under-the-bus/
SCOTUS Thomas Outed Again
A Lot from Lydia
ProPublica has uncovered more of the same corruption by conservative Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. Thomas said of his vacations with Harlan Crow, something to the effect of we are good friends, of course we go on vacations together. The home Crow purchased for Thomas’s mother, and the elite education for Thomas’s nephew, were not addressed.
His acceptance, and non-disclosure, of gifts from billionaires now includes three more benefactors, besides Harlan Crow.
H. Wayne Huizenga, a billionaire who turned Blockbuster and Waste Management into national goliathsPaul “Tony” Novelly, retired oil company titleholderDavid Sokol, former heir apparent of Berkshire HathawayThomas enjoyed many extravagant excursions over the 30 years of his tenure. The booty includes flights on private jets and helicopters, stays at luxury resorts, skybox tickets to college and pro sporting events, and a standing invitation to play at a high-end exclusive golf club in Florida. (Yawn.)
Did I mention Thomas failed to report these perks on his financial disclosure forms?
The reason it is unethical for Thomas to lap up treats is that he has been the SCOTUS, presiding over several cases of interest to these generous friends. This is a pattern, Thomas accepting bribery with limited public admission.
Read The ProPublica article, link attached, to find the methods they used to uncover this round of undisclosed gifts.
Sokol, one of the busted billionaires, said,
“We have never once discussed any pending court matter. Our conversations have always revolved around helping young people, sports, and family matters. As to the use of private aviation, I believe that, given security concerns, all the Supreme Court justices should either fly privately or on governmental aircraft.”
Did Thomas break the law? He shows consciousness of guilt by not disclosing the gifts. But also, if it was public knowledge, we would have scrutinized him for presiding over cases of interest to his “dear friends.”
How many of these billionaires would have gifted Thomas perks that are estimated to value in the millions if he wasn’t a Justice? I dunno. But, when I stopped taking cupcakes to class on my birthday, no one gave a duck what day it was.
The Constitution states that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” So he’ll resign, right? Hahaha… no. Why would he give up a lifetime appointment that protects him from accountability?
What can we do? Considering that members of the SCOTUS have declared themselves immune to the laws of mortal men, the only recourse is to remove Thomas is by impeachment.
Has a Justice ever been impeached? The only case of impeachment was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.
Is anyone working on reform?
Yes.In February, Senator Whitehouse introduced a bill establishing new codes of conduct for judges and justices of U.S. courts, including Justices of the Supreme Court.Soon after, Senator Whitehouse and Blumenthal, and Representatives Johnson, Nadmer, Quigly and Cicilline introduced a revised version, ‘Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.’And in June, Representatives Ro Khanna and Don Beyer reintroduced ‘The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act’ following the Supreme Court’s decision to block the Biden Administration’s Student Debt Relief Plan.Another group of Senate Democrats has introduced the ‘Judiciary Act of 2021,’ proposing an increase adding four Justices to the Supreme Court. This would match the numbers in the circuit court, which was the formula of the past. As you can see by the name of the bill, two years have passed without success.Finally, On July 10, 2023, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin proposed a bill to speed things along.“The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct, allowing the public to submit ethics complaints that a randomly selected panel of lower court judges would review. It would establish new rules for disclosure of gifts and travel. And it would impose recusal rules pertaining to gifts, income and other potential conflicts.”
The problem lies here, this bill these bills require a supermajority to pass the Senate. That means instead of 51-49, they need 60 votes to pass. To abolish the super majority rule involves a vote with a simple majority. Two Democratic Senators, Manchin and Sinema, refuse to add their tallies to that cause.
This is a quite a conundrum. The only solution to passing any of the bills is to garner a real majority in the Senate and House at the same time. To achieve that, we must all vote Democratic. Until then, Thomas and his right-wing SCOTUS colleagues in crime are not going anywhere, or changing their behavior.
I’ve often imagined where we would be as a country and as a planet if Al Gore had been allowed to be president? He won, and had the Supreme Court at the time not stopped the recount, he would have been president. Clarence Thomas was the deciding SCOTUS who ended the recount. Now I realize I should have been wondering where we’d be had we listened to Anita Hill. This would be a different world.
[…]
Via https://alotfromlydia.com/2023/08/10/scotus-thomas-outed-again/
The British Raj and Early Indian Nationalism
Episode 26 The British Raj and Early Nationalism
A History of India
Michael Fisher (2016)
Film Review
After the British government took over running India from the British East India Company in 1857, the British Indian Civil Service (ICS) directly ran two-thirds of India. The other third was governed by independent principalities loyal to the British Crown and “advised” by agents of the ICS.
The vast majority of ICS civil servants were British-born and returned to the UK when they retired. A few native Indians traveled to London to take the civil service exam, which was in English and required a knowledge of Greek, Latin and other European languages. Surendranath Banerjee passed the exam in 1869 but was failed for poor horsemanship.
By 1900, only 11 native Indians had passed the exam. Recruitment of native Indian bureaucrats increase significantly (owing to large numbers of British casualties) following World War I. By the time India declared independence in 1947, it had increased to 50%.
To improve their export efficiency, Britain built an underseas telegraph cable to Britain in 1865 and a national railroad network (with all railway cars, track and ties manufactured in Britain. They also built irrigation canals, bringing agriculture to the arid Punjab and Sindh for the first time.
The British conducted India’s first census in 1871, repeating it every ten years until Indian independence (1947). By then, India had 390 million people, run by an ICS of 980 British overseeing millions of Indian clerks and laborers.
Since they were excluded from the ICS, most middle class Indians worked for the railroads. Under the Alienation Act of 1890, only agricultural castes were allowed to purchase land.
Native Indians had no real sense of Indian national identity prior to 1885, when 70 members of the “Anglicized” Indian elite convened the first meeting of the Indian National Congress in Bombay.
Nevertheless to thwart growing Indian nationalism, in 1905 the British split Bengal into East and West Bengal. East Bengal consisted mainly of Muslims, eager for protection from the Hindu majority. The British also created separate Muslim electorates throughout India, where only Muslims were eligible to run for office or vote. They also moved the capitol of the British Raj from Bengal to Delhi to reduce the influence of Bengali nationalists.
Fisher believes these actions led to the formation of the Muslim League in 1906, despite participation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and a few supporters in the mainly Hindu Indian National Congress.
With the arrival of World War I, Gandhi and other nationalists encouraged native Indians to enlist to prove their right to full citizenship. 1.7 million Indians enlisted, with many achieving officer rank for the first time. The British Raj also required India to contribute food, clothing and money to the European war effort, significantly weakening the country’s economy.
The end of the war saw a major British crackdown on Indian nationalism, with a 1919 law authorizing detention of native Indians without trial and the Jallianwall Bagh Massacre, when troops fired on a peaceful crowd assembled in Amritsar to protest the new law.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/366254/366223
August 9, 2023
Breakthrough Study: Antibiotic Resistance Linked to Air Pollution
By Brett Wilkins
Common DreamsThe authors of the first-of-its-kind study published this week in the U.K. medical journal The Lancet said their findings have substantial policy and environmental implications by presenting a new pathway to combat clinical antibiotic resistance by controlling environmental pollution.
A study published this week in the U.K. medical journal The Lancet is the first to link air pollution with antimicrobial resistance, a growing public health threat around the world.“Antibiotic resistance is an increasingly global issue, causing millions of deaths worldwide every year,” the Chinese and British authors wrote in the study, which used data collected from more than 100 countries over nearly 20 years.
The authors said:
“Our analysis presents strong evidence that increasing levels of air pollution are associated with increased risk of antibiotic resistance.”
“The findings have substantial policy and environmental implications by presenting a new pathway to combat clinical antibiotic resistance by controlling environmental pollution,” the researchers added.
Curbing levels of harmful air pollution could help reduce antibiotic resistance, according to the first in-depth global analysis of possible links between the two, published in @TheLancetPlanet: https://t.co/YSCPXlGFN1 pic.twitter.com/MvENzaoKNH
— The Lancet (@TheLancet) August 7, 2023
Hong Chen, a professor at Zhejiang University in China and the study’s lead author, told The Guardian that “antibiotic resistance and air pollution are each in their own right among the greatest threats to global health.”
“Until now, we didn’t have a clear picture of the possible links between the two, but this work suggests the benefits of controlling air pollution could be twofold: Not only will it reduce the harmful effects of poor air quality, it could also play a major role in combating the rise and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” Chen added.
SHOCKING: A new study shows air pollution is linked with rising antibiotic resistance across the world.
Controlling pollution will not only reduce harmful effects of poor air quality, it could also play a role in combatting the rise and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
— Greenpeace UK (@GreenpeaceUK) August 8, 2023
A paper published in The Lancet last year attributed 1.27 million deaths worldwide in 2019 to antimicrobial resistance — more people than perished from malaria or AIDS that year.
The United Nations Environmental Program warned in July that “if unchecked, [antimicrobial resistance] could shave $3.4 trillion off GDP annually and push 24 million more people into extreme poverty in the next decade.”
Other research estimated that by 2050, as many as 10 million people could die annually around the world due to drug-resistant bacteria and microbes, a higher death toll than cancer.
Air pollution is already responsible for around 1 in 5 global deaths, according to multiple studies published in recent years.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/antibiotic-resistance-air-pollution-cd/
Did Jack Smith Open the Door on the 2020 Vote?
Special counsel Jack Smith made a lot of noise on Aug. 4 by requesting a “protective order” against big, bad Donald Trump because the former president posted “If you go after me, I’m coming after you” on Truth Social.
While the request sounds like the usual grandstanding, Smith may actually have something to fear from our 45th president, although it may not be exactly what he intends to convey here.
Indeed, it may be far more significant than mere social media puffery in the end.
The actual 2020 presidential vote results, in which fewer and fewer of our citizens have confidence, have been called to question.
Given the nature of his indictment of Mr. Trump related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, it seems the special counsel has opened the door to putting the 2020 presidential election on trial. Mr. Smith’s indictment depends on proving that Mr. Trump was lying when he said the vote was fraudulent. Well, we’ll see.
The mainstream media and their new best friend, former Attorney General William Barr, assure us these same charges will finally be the end for Mr. Trump. (Other legal minds—notably Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Andrew C. McCarthy—differ.)
At the same time, regarding Jan. 6 itself, a hitherto-unseen Tucker Carlson interview with former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund has surfaced. Mr. Sund was fired shortly after Jan. 6 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Mr. Sund told Mr. Carlson that the supposed insurrection was “crawling with feds” to a degree he had never seen in more than 30 years as a police officer—18 FBI undercover personnel, plus an additional 20 agents from the Department of Homeland Security.
In addition, Ms. Pelosi had already refused Mr. Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guard troops.
What may lie ahead of us, however, through these Jan. 6-related charges, is finally achieving some understanding of what actually happened in 2020, finally getting to a truth that would be accepted, if not by all, by enough of our citizens to move forward as a nation without thinking we’ve become a banana republic.
That’s the best-case scenario. The worst case, of course, is continued omertà—code of silence—from the Department of Justice and its media allies.
The one most responsible for that omertà, or at least the one to give it credence, is arguably the aforementioned Mr. Barr. It was he who less than a month after Election Day 2020 announced that his Justice Department hadn’t found sufficient evidence of fraud to have affected the election.
How did he know that in such a short time in a country with a population of more than 330 million divided among 50 states, each of which, according to its Constitution, controlled its own election laws through its state legislature and many of which have totally different voting systems?
[…]
Via https://www.zerohedge.com/political/did-jack-smith-open-door-2020-vote
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
