Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 401

The Bhagavad Gita: Translated 1000 Times in 75 Different Languages

Episode 8 Dharma in the Bhagavad Gita

A History of India

Michael Fisher (2016)

Film Review

The Bhagavad Gita (The Lord God’s Song) is the section of the Mahabharata (see Deciphering India’s Oral History Through the Mahabharata) that receives most attention in the West.

Throughout his career, Gandhi quoted and expanded to promote its non-violent teachings. Ironically his assassin Nathuram Godse also used it to help plan the assassination.

The Gita has been translated 2000 times into 75 languages. In Sanskrit alone, there are 225 different commentaries on its meaning. It was first translated into English in 1785, and Ralpha Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Robert Oppenheimer (war-time head of Los Alamos laboratory), John Coltrane and classical composer Philip Glass were all big fans. Tulsi Gabbard, the first practicing Hindu in Congress, took her oath of office on the Gita.

In the Gita, the hero Arjuna is extremely reluctant to slaughter cousins competing with him for the throne. For this reason the god Krishna, posing as his chariot driver, takes him into no-man’s-land and explains the the cosmos and the relationship between men and God. The shortest book in the Mahabharata, the Gita is 700 verses long and takes 90 minutes to recite in Sanskrit.

Historians believe it was probably composed on 200 AD. Because it was less sacred than the Vedas, scholars were allowed to edit the Mahabarata. Recorded on palm leaves, Fisher believes the original only survived two to three generations. He also suspects edits occurred with each new copy that was made.

The 1968 translation of the Gita by Swami Prabupada would lead to the formation of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (the Hare Krishna movement), which at its height had 23 million members.

It enunciates the following basic principles:

Because all life is impermanent, people should not fear death.Killing to achieve a higher principal (ie liberation, to end immorality) isn’t necessarily wrong.Individuals misperceive themselves as separate from Brahman, the universal being or oneness.Making an issue of killing/dying violates the essence of oneness, as only death allows the soul to reunite with the universal oneness on which all being is based.One must act in the world without desiring consequences, a state of mind achieved through yogas (ie disciplines).*armic yoga – each person needs to selflessly follow their own specific duty and code of conduct (eg because members of the Kshatriyas varna are obliged to do battle, they don’t commit evil when they kill).**Jnana yoga – acting in the world while fully understanding the transitory nature of existence makes moral doubts disappear.Meditative yoga – meditating allows people to release desire, fear and anger, making moral doubts disappearBhakti yoga – total devotion to the divine protects us from susceptibility to human desires.**

*The word yoga comes from the same root word as the English word yoke.

**Krishna himself was born into the Kshsatriya varna (see The Vedic Origin of India’s Castes)

***This concept was new with the Gita and for the first time opened the path of devotion to all human being regardless of their birth status (Ie it was no longer limited to members of the Brahmin varna). Following publication of the Gita, the route to devotion no longer depended on Vedas, Brahmins or ritual sacrifice.

 

The https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/366254/366187

Arizona Running Out of Water. Big Tech Data Centers Partly to Blame.

Alistair BarrInsider

I fell in love in Arizona in the early 1990s. If I close my eyes, I can still see my girlfriend (now wife) hiking through the Superstition Mountains east of Phoenix wearing a half top.

The other thing I remember is how damn hot and dry it was.

So it surprised me, years later, when I heard Google was planning a massive data center in Mesa, just east of Phoenix. The deal guaranteed Google 1 million gallons of water a day to cool the facility, and up to 4 million gallons a day if it hit project milestones. (That’s a lot of water. Arizona residents each use about 146 gallons a day). I was an editor at Bloomberg at the time and we wrote about it here.

Since then, the Phoenix metro area has been dubbed “THE data center destination” by locals. Microsoft opened one in 2021 in Arizona. Meta is building and expanding a facility in Mesa.

These huge data centers use incredible amounts of water because the computing gear inside gets really hot when it processes all those YouTube videos, Zoom meetings, and mobile app sessions. Water is often used to cool the equipment.

Google  has started disclosing data on this. In 2021, all the company’s data centers consumed 4.34 billion gallons of water. That’s so much, the company tried to put it all in context by comparing itself to that bastion of environmental stewardship: Golf courses. Google noted that 4.34 billion gallons are equivalent to the annual water footprint of 29 golf courses in the southwest US.

Meta discloses this information, too. The company’s data centers withdrew just over 5 million cubic meters of water in 2021. That’s about 1.33 billion gallons.

This brings us back to Arizona. The state is running out of water. A few weeks ago, the governor unveiled a plan to limit construction in areas around Phoenix after finding that the groundwater can’t support the current pace of building.

There are many reasons for this. But these data centers have a part to play in Arizona’s water shortage. And that doesn’t even include Google’s Mesa facility, which hasn’t been finished yet. Facebook is still building its data center in the town, too. So more water will probably be sucked out of the state soon.

The governor’s new limits exclude thousands of already approved developments, so Google will probably get its facility done if it wants it. I asked the company about this and it said the project is still alive. “While we do not have a confirmed timeline for development for the site, we want to ensure we have the option to grow further, should our business demand it,” Google stated.

Why do big tech companies build data centers in the middle of a desert? It would be better to place them in colder areas that have more water, right?

Unfortunately, speed often trumps the environment here. Putting data centers close to large populations is more important. The closer you are to users, the faster your internet services respond. Faster means more usage, which means more digital ads and cloud services sold, and higher revenue.

The Phoenix metro area has 5 million residents and has been growing fast, so the data centers follow. Even if there’s not enough water.

Google, Microsoft, and Meta are working to find more sustainable ways to cool their data centers. They are also spending real money and effort on water conservation projects. But there’s only so much you can do to fight the reality of blisteringly hot, dry Arizona days.

Microsoft said in 2021 that its Arizona data centers would use “zero water” for cooling using adiabatic cooling, which uses outside air instead of water. That only works, though, when temperatures are below 85F. It’s going to be 113F in Phoenix this weekend — a little too hot for a hike.

[…]

Via https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-running-out-of-water-data-centers-blame-microsoft-google-2023-6

U.S. House Floats Bill to Defund WHO, WEF and ‘Misinformation’ Programs

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations’ Fiscal Year 2024 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill also would slash funding directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance and gain-of-function research.

 The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has proposed cutting government funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) entirely, as part of its budget proposal for fiscal year 2024.

This proposal was included in the committee’s Fiscal Year 2024 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, released June 22. According to the committee’s press release, the proposals are geared toward “cutting spending for low-priority activities and programs.”

The bill also includes prohibitions on funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance and gain-of-function research; termination of U.S. government involvement with the World Economic Forum (WEF); and a ban on government “misinformation” and “disinformation” programs.

It’s uncertain if any of the proposed cuts will be adopted, as the bill faces a long path through Congress.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), one of Congress’ most vocally opposed to U.S. involvement in the WHO, told The Defender the proposals by the appropriations committee are a positive sign — but more action is needed.

[…

In his May 10 letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Norman said the first step “to avoid the unacceptable consequences of what is afoot with the World Health Organization” is “to terminate further U.S. funding of the WHO, a roughly $700 million annual contribution.”

In a separate letter on May 24 to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Norman urged the committee “to conduct oversight and consider taking up legislation to address the United States’ involvement” in the WHO.

Several medical and legal experts who spoke with The Defender and who have been outspoken in their opposition to the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) also described the bill as a positive development.

Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the Global Covid Summit, said the bill is “a move in the right direction — probably not enough, but I applaud them trying.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, noted the significance of such proposals coming from the appropriations committee.

[…]

Author and podcast host Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, said what the bill means in practice “is unclear at the moment,” but that it nevertheless is a “huge first step.”

[…]

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, said that while the WHO was “once a force for good,” it now “has become part of a tragedy.”

[…]

Noting the extent to which the U.S. government — and taxpayers — fund the WHO, independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender, “In 2022 the United States donated nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to the WHO, which was over and above the assessed payments we were obligated to make.”

The committee’s proposals came just as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) held a series of “listening sessions” discussing the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, during which numerous experts and activists expressed their opposition to both instruments.

A growing number of lawmakers in Congress also have begun calling for the U.S. to cease funding the WHO and exit the organization. Several bills putting forth such proposals are currently under consideration in Congress.

‘Supports American values’ by banning ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation’ programs

The proposed appropriations bill includes what it describes as “cuts to wasteful spending,” including a prohibition on funding for “controversial organizations and programs,” many of which involve United Nations (U.N.) bodies such as the WHO.

Other “cuts to wasteful spending” proposed in the bill include a prohibition of funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance and “any gain-of-function research,” in addition to an elimination of funding for the U.N.’s regular budget, which the bill’s summary states will result in “savings of $707 million.”

The proposal also “terminates” U.S. government participation in 18 programs. These include organizations such as the U.N. Environment Fund and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the WEF.

According to the bill, it “supports American values” by “banning ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation’ programs that violate the free speech rights of American citizens.”

On June 23, the proposed bill underwent “subcommittee markup” in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs subcommittee, referring to the “key formal step a committee ultimately takes for the bill to advance to the floor.”

[…]

The bill’s passage from subcommittee markup represents an early step in the congressional appropriations process.

Full committee markup will follow, during which the bill may be amended. It may then be placed on the congressional calendar, leading to its consideration on the House and Senate floors, during which more amendments may be proposed.

House and Senate votes may then follow. Any differences that emerge between the House and Senate versions of the bill would then have to be resolved. The bill may also be added as a rider to other pending legislation.

Eventually, the bill may reach the president’s desk for his signature — or a veto.

The proposed bill may be considered for markup by the appropriations committee as soon as the week of July 10, a source with knowledge of the committee’s procedures told The Defender, although this date is not yet definite.

WHO a ‘real and present danger’

As the appropriations committee is considering defunding the WHO, the HHS Office of Global Affairs on Wednesday organized “stakeholder listening sessions” on the draft pandemic treaty. Previously, on June 20, the committee held a listening session on the proposed IHR amendments.

The HHS Office of Global Affairs employs at least two of the U.S. negotiators for the IHR amendments.

At Wednesday’s listening session, Pamela Hamamoto, lead U.S. negotiator for the pandemic treaty, said

[…]

Political opposition to the WHO intensifies

Opposition to the WHO is becoming increasingly vocal in Congress in recent weeks. Several bills have been proposed calling for the U.S. to stop funding or withdraw from the WHO.

These include H.R.79 (WHO Withdrawal Act), H.R.343 (No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act), H.R.1425 (No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act) and S.444 (No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act).

Referring to this congressional activity, Norman told The Defender: “We’ve got to disassociate ourselves with the WHO … This country is in danger of losing its sovereignty. We cannot let this happen by staying in the WHO.”

The bill that appears to have the most support so far is H.R.79, proposed by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), which has 49 co-sponsors.

On May 22, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chair of the House Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, announced forthcoming congressional hearings regarding continued U.S. membership in the WHO and involvement in the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments under negotiation.

Norman, Biggs, Smith and other members of Congress spoke in support of defunding and exiting the WHO at a May 17 Sovereignty Coalition press conference.

Roguski said, “Merely defunding the WHO is an inadequate response,” adding that H.R.79 would repeal the 1948 joint resolution through which the U.S. joined the WHO, which he said, “should have been declared unconstitutional 75 years ago.”

[…]

U.S. House Floats Bill to Defund WHO, WEF and ‘Misinformation’ Programs

Hunter-gatherer lifestyle fosters thriving gut microbiome

The Hadza people of Tanzania are among the last hunter-gatherer societies in Africa.Credit: Boyd E. Norton/Science Source/Science Photo Library

Gemma Conroy

Nature 

The human gut is teeming with trillions of microbes, but most studies of this vast community have focused on people living in urban regions. Now, a team of researchers has sequenced gut microbiomes from Hadza people — members of a hunter-gatherer society in northern Tanzania — and compared them with those from people in Nepal and California1. The study has found not only that the Hadza tend to have more gut microorganisms than people in the other groups, but that a Western lifestyle seems to diminish the diversity of gut populations.

The Hadza had an average of 730 species of gut microbe per person. The average Californian gut microbiome contained just 277 species, and the Nepali microbiomes fell in between. People with a farming-based lifestyle had an average of 436 microbe species, whereas those who live by foraging had an average of 317.

The team also found species in the Hadza microbiomes that were not present in the Californian samples, such as the corkscrew-shaped bacterium Treponema succinifaciens. Only some of the Nepali microbiomes contained this microbe, suggesting that the bacterium is dying out as societies become more industrialized.

Redressing the balance

Previous research has found that human gut microbiomes vary across regions and lifestyles, but there is a lack of data from non-industrialized populations, says study co-author Justin Sonnenburg, a microbiologist at Stanford University in California. “Part of the sequencing effort was to help fill that gap and provide more data for regions of the world that are under-represented,” he says.

Although it is well known that the microbiomes of people living non-industrial lifestyles are more diverse than those of people in industrialized societies, the findings show that the difference is more pronounced than previously thought, says study co-author Matthew Carter, also a microbiologist at Stanford.

“The data greatly expand our picture of the human microbiome,” says Andrew Moeller, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. “I am sure there are untold stories that remain hidden in the sequences.”

The researchers sequenced microbiomes from fecal samples collected from 167 Hadza people — including infants and mothers — between 2013 and 2014. For comparison, the team also generated sequences from stool samples collected from four groups of people in Nepal in 2016, and samples from Californian participants in a 2021 study2 that explored how diet affects the microbiome.

Diversity dwindles

From these samples, Sonnenburg and his team sequenced more than 90,000 genomes from microbes found in the human gut, including bacteria, viruses that infect bacteria, and single-celled organisms from groups called archaea and eukaryotes. Some 44% of these microbial genomes had not yet been recorded in large catalogues such as the Unified Human Gastrointestinal Genome database. Among the genome sequences recovered from the Hadza samples, more than 1,000 were from bacterial or archaeal species that are new to science.

Furthermore, gut-microbe species commonly found in industrialized populations often contained genes associated with responding to oxidative damage. The team suspects chronic inflammation in the gut could trigger such damage, creating a selective pressure for those genes, says study co-author Matthew Olm, a microbiologist at Stanford. “If you have a state of chronic inflammation, it would make sense that your gut microbiome has to adapt,” he says. These genes were not detected in the Hadza microbiomes.

Samuel Forster, a microbiologist at the Hudson Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia, says that studying non-Western populations will help to build a more complete picture of the human gut microbiome and how it differs across lifestyles and regions. This could help researchers to track which species are disappearing in industrialized populations and how that affects human health, says Forster. “We have an opportunity to understand the full complement of microbes we carry,” he says. “It’s effectively avoiding an extinction event by understanding them now, before they’re lost.”

[…]

Via https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02065-y

If vaccines don’t cause autism, then how do you explain all this evidence?

Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

Here’s my favorite short list of evidence that can’t be explained if vaccines don’t cause autism. Does anyone think I’m wrong and can explain the list?

Note that I only claim that vaccines are a major cause, not the sole cause. There are other things that contribute. But if we could change only one thing, eliminating use of all vaccines is the single best way to reduce the rate of autism in the US.

The list (in no particular order)

Here is a list of some of the most compelling evidence I’ve run across.

If there is a hypothesis that is a better fit to this evidence than vaccines cause autism, I’d love to hear it.

Lack of a single case where a child became “overnight autistic” before a vaccination appointment: There are thousands of parents who report that their child became “overnight autistic” within 24 hours after a vaccine shot. I personally know dozens of these parents. So if vaccines don’t cause autism, there must be an equal number of parents who noticed this within 24 hours before a vaccine appointment. Yet, nobody has ever heard of a single kid who became “overnight autistic” even within 2 weeks before a vaccination appointment! All the “overnight autism” stories are all after a vaccination appointment, generally within a 2 week window. Here’s an example of overnight autism. Note that in general that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is in this case. If there was such a story, someone would have heard it. So I called Mark Blaxill and JB Handley just to make sure I didn’t miss anything. They hadn’t heard of a single case like this either and they’ve been doing this for a heck of a lot longer than I have. Nobody has heard it because it doesn’t exist. Note that I also asked on Twitter for a counter-example, and nobody had one there either. Here’s yet another ask for exceptions. If vaccines weren’t causing overnight autism, the anecdotes of this happening pre-vaccine appointment would be as easy to find as the anecdotes of it happening post-vaccine appointment. Bottom line: If you are a critical thinker, you really don’t need anything more than this one point to prove causality. We’re done.The McDowell triplets all became autistic within hours of each other on the same day. How is that possible? Easy. They were all vaccinated at the exact same time in the same pediatrician appointment with just one vaccine shot: the pneumococcal vaccine! The girl (Clair) shut completely off just 2 hours after the shot. The first boy, Richie, shut down 4 hours after the shot. See also this article. They were all 9 months old at the time with no problems. The geneticist that was consulted told the McDowell’s that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY for this to happen due to GENETICS. It is impossible for three different siblings to genetically get autism on the same day. That is correct. It is a statistical impossibility. The article says, “We hear about children getting autism ALL THE TIME after their vaccinations.”There are apparently no cases of a unvaccinated child who was meeting all their milestones, then suddenly regressed into profound autism at 12 months or older. Note that profound autism affects 1 in 4 kids with ASD. See this tweet for details and the references.Madsen study: Even in this heavily flawed study, the raw data showed a strongly elevated risk of autism. So they never showed the raw data odds ratio (did you know that the rate of autism was 45% higher in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group?) and the paper only showed the adjusted numbers! That’s unethical. You can read the flaws in this study that was widely cited to prove that there was no association here. Over 1,000 scientists didn’t see anything wrong with the study! It’s really stunning how easily bad science propagates into the mainstream. Note that this is the single best study that is cited to prove that vaccines don’t cause autism and it is deeply flawed. The authors wouldn’t provide the underlying data and refused to answer any questions. Is that the way science works? There is also the Hviid 2019 study which was debunked by Brian Hooker here.Their evidence on their side is all very shaky: See this analysis by Jerry Hammond entitled: “Why the Claim ‘Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism’ Is Disinformation” as well as this article which debunks the 16 most cited papers on their side: Part 2: Vaccines and Autism – What Do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us?.214 papers in the peer-reviewed literature linking vaccines and autism: Autism mom Ginger Taylor compiled a list of 214 studies showing the link between vaccines and autism. Here’s the list as a single download. Here’s a short list (30 key papers). There are also 400 papers showing how dangerous the vaccines are in general. See Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.Wakefield 1998 paper: Wakefield’s retracted paper reported that “We investigated a consecutive series of children… Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.” So 66% of the cases were associated with the MMR vaccine. The 2022 Morocco study : 70% of the 90 parents surveyed affirmed that the first autistic features appeared after vaccination with the MMR vaccine. The rates are nearly identical to the 66% rate in the Wakefield study.DeStefano paper evidence destruction: CDC scientist William Thompson was ordered by his bosses at the CDC to destroy ONLY the evidence linking vaccines and autism. Furthermore, the race subgroup analysis showing the link was omitted from the paper which is also unethical. When Congressman Bill Posey tried to get Thompson to testify in Congress, they shut him down so there was no testimony. This coverup was what convinced Wakefield that he was right: vaccines cause autism. More about the DeStefano paper in this article.Simpsonwood meeting: CDC scientist Thomas Verstraeten did a study in 1999 linking thimerosal with autism. They tried to make the autism signal go away. They couldn’t. The original signal was a RR=7.6 which is a huge signal. See my article for details and a link to the original Verstraeten study.Paul Offit lied to RFK Jr. about thimerosal: RFK Jr told me the story personally, but now, it’s on the Joe Rogan podcast Episode #1999. Start listening at 23:00. The punchline is at 28:33. Basically, the ethylmercury in the thimerosal makes a beeline out of your blood and deposits into your brain (unlike the methylmercury in fish which has a harder time entering your brain so it stays in your blood longer). Offit tried to convince RFK that the mercury gets excreted by referring to a paper. When RFK brought up the Burbacher study, there was dead silence on the line because Offit knew he had been caught in a deception. In short, thimerosal can seriously damage people’s brains. Vaccines are not supposed to cross the BBB. This creates biological plausibility needed for causality.The CDC study showing how the measles vaccine caused permanent brain damage

The most remarkable paper showing the MMR vaccine causes permanent brain damage and death is this 1998 paper Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is written by CDC authors and has not been questioned or retracted and cited by 90 papers.

[…]

Other evidence

The Amish: We couldn’t find an Amish child with autism who wasn’t vaccinated or adopted.a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.” What makes this believable is that other clinics who didn’t vaccinate reported the same results.

[…]

Via https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-then?r=b9xiw

Another Study Identifies High Rate of Severe Myocarditis Post COVID Vax

(Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock)Ray Arora

Cardiologist Dr. Anish Koka weighs in: “This should hopefully end the mainstream expert narrative characterizing vaccine myocarditis as mild.”

The academic publication in the European Heart Journal can be found here.

[…]

New South Korean Study Identifies High Rate of Severe Myocarditis Cases

A new South Korean nationwide study on vaccine-related myocarditis contains troubling implications on the severity of cardiac damage conferred by the mass experiment conducted on the population—young men in particular—without informed consent and a clear understanding of risk-reward ratios.

Myocardial inflammation linked to the mRNA vaccines has become a bizarrely contentious and politicized topic. Never before has there been a time in history where one’s political orientation could predict their views on the safety of a drug or therapeutic. The psychopathic media witch-burning of Joe Rogan for his views on vaccine myocarditis and child vaccination informed by Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola’s paper in 2021 was the most telling example that this conversation had been corrupted by forces powerful enough to obscure the data.
This new study published in the European Heart Journal is incredibly comprehensive. In South Korea, the Korean Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) established a reporting system to make it legally obligatory to report vaccine adverse events such as myocarditis.

Among 44,276,704 South Koreans vaccinated, 1,533 cases of suspected myocarditis were identified under the KDCA. Of the 1,533 total cases, the KDCA’s “Expert Adjudication Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination Pericarditis/Myocarditis” confirmed 480 cases. The population-wide risk comes to 1 in 100,000.

For teenage boys ages 12–17, where the risk is most concentrated, the vaccine myocarditis incidence was predictably far higher at 1 in 18,900. This reported rate is far lower than other estimates from Hong Kong’s active surveillance system (1 in 2,680 after dose two) and Kaiser Permanente (1 in 2,650 after dose two) in the same age group. While a 1 in 18,000 risk is nontrivial on a population level, several reasons explain why South Korean researchers found a lower rate of myocarditis than various other American, European, and Asian study estimates.

Most importantly, of the vaccinated South Korean population in the study, less than three-quarters took the mRNA jabs (71 percent), of which 56 percent took the Pfizer shots. Only 15 percent of vaccinees took the Moderna shots. This is noteworthy because vaccine-induced myocarditis incidence is far higher in those vaccinated with the Moderna product. The same link has not been robustly identified in non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Almost a third of vaccinated South Koreans took a non-mRNA vaccine (AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine).

Secondly, the study did not tally myocarditis rates by vaccine dose for different age groups in men and women. The second dose of the vaccine is known to cause higher rates of myocarditis in young men than the first. In other words, a more careful breakdown by dose and vaccine type would have revealed a far higher incidence of vaccine myocarditis. The researchers did, however, compare myocarditis incidence across vaccine doses broadly (without breaking it down by age and gender, as mentioned):

Predictably, Moderna dose two is associated with the highest rate of 1 in 86,000. Pfizer is the second most dangerous vaccine in this regard, with an incidence of 1 in 166,600 per vaccinated persons after the second dose. Comparatively, the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with a 1 in 1,111,111 incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis.

Unsurprisingly, this study shows the mRNAs are far more dangerous (at least on the myocarditis front) than other COVID-19 vaccines.

Another reason why researchers identified a lower incidence of myocarditis is the methodology used for the adjudication of myocarditis cases. According to cardiologist Dr. Anish Koka, who provided his comments on this study, “This also reflects more stringent criteria used by Korean investigators in diagnosing vaccine myocarditis.”

As Koka further explained, “The committee rejected the level 3 BC case definition of myocarditis and the level 2 BC case definition that did not have associated cardiac damage evident on a blood test or any case with a positive result for COVID-19 infection.” As a result, many probable and likely cases of vaccine myocarditis were excluded due to highly stringent criteria.

Note: The rates of subclinical myocarditis still remain unknown and can’t be captured in a study like this. Based on one small Thai study, we have reason to believe many young men have suffered from subclinical myocarditis by the mRNA shots, to varying degrees, but have not been tracked by public health agencies.

The most concerning part of the study is the reported rate of “severe Covid-19 vaccine-related myocarditis.” Researchers identified 95 cases (19.8 percent) of severe myocarditis, 85 ICU admissions (17.7 percent), 36 fulminant myocarditis cases (7.5 percent), 21 ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] therapies—a modified heart-lung by-pass machine—(4.4 percent), 21 deaths (4.4 percent), and one heart transplantation (0.2 percent).

Koka views a 20 percent rate of serious complications from vaccine-related myocarditis as “startling.”

[…]

Via https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/another-study-identifies-high-rate-of-severe-myocarditis-cases-post-covid-vax_5330449.html

New Scientific Review Adds to Evidence of Pesticides’ Harmful Effect on Gut-Brain Axis

By  Beyond Pesticides

Often called the “second brain” because it houses nerve cells and produces neurotransmitters, the gut-brain axis may be the most important locus where microbes and pesticides meet.

Pesticides interfere with biological processes. This is their purpose. Unfortunately, they nearly always have unintended consequences, many of which have been ignored by their manufacturers.

A new review article by Irish and Dutch researchers in the ISME Journal adds to the emerging scientific literature examining how pesticides affect the relationship between the human gut and the human brain (the “gut-brain axis”).

Often called the “second brain” because it houses nerve cells and produces neurotransmitters, the gut-brain axis may be the most important locus where microbes and pesticides meet.

The human gut plays host to a variety of microorganisms, ranging from bacteria and archaea to fungi, viruses and yeasts. In a healthy person, these microbes remain in balance and often cooperate both with each other and with human cells.

The gut and the brain are deeply integrated through the vagus nerve and the neuroendocrine system.

The vagus nerve is a treelike bundle of fibers extending from the lower part of the brain to nearly every body organ, but particularly the heart, lungs and digestive tract.

The neuroendocrine system comprises specialized cells inhabiting almost all the organs of the body that respond to signals from the brain and gut to produce hormones that regulate digestive enzymes, the pace of digestion, air and blood flow in the lungs, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose levels and other functions.

Pesticides may exert influence over any or all of these processes. They may also affect the immune system, and some, such as glyphosate, can cross the blood-brain barrier.

Pesticides can affect the production of many chemicals by gut bacteria, including serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid or GABA, both important neurotransmitters.

They are also notorious for disrupting the endocrine system, including reproductive hormones.

A 2020 review by Spanish scientists proposed that xenobiotics such as pesticides should be termed “microbiota disrupting chemicals” as they can interfere with microbes’ role in metabolizing steroid hormones such as estradiol, cortisol and testosterone.

Beyond Pesticides has previously reported numerous studies elucidating the deleterious effects of pesticides on disease risks involving the gut-brain axis.

These include the close association between digestive disruption and Type 1 diabetes in children and Type 2 diabetes in adults, and the ability of azoxystrobin (AZO) fungicide to impair the function of the colonic barrier in nutrient absorption and protection from harmful substances.

The digestive problems associated with Type I diabetes have been linked to exposure to antibiotics and some pesticides. Such exposures reduce the number of certain bacteria in the gut that can help protect against the inflammation triggered by these chemicals.

Pesticides’ effects on gut microbes have also been linked to autism spectrum disorder, as has digestive dysfunction.

Adult-onset neurological diseases also involve digestive disruption, which in turn may be related to disruption of the gut microbe balance.

In 2022 Beyond Pesticides reported on a study showing that the gastrointestinal disruptions, including damage to enteric glial cells that lead to Parkinson’s disease (the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s), are associated with exposure to rotenone, chlorpyrifos and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate and paraquat.

The Irish and Dutch researchers also reviewed a study showing that glyphosate can enter the brain and raise inflammation levels, a process that has been linked to Alzheimer’s.

A 2022 study suggested that chronic exposure to dietary pesticides can affect gut microbes and trigger a cascade of changes leading to these neurodegenerative diseases.

Pesticides’ effects on host-microbe processes are not confined to humans. Importantly, pesticides affect the microbes associated with plants and nontarget insects, often changing the proportions of various species.

For example, French researchers in 2022 identified glyphosate’s changes to honey bees’ immune systems and gut microbiota, demonstrating a plausible mechanism for the bees’ susceptibility to certain diseases.

[…]

Lactobacillus species are adversely affected by herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, according to the authors of the current study.

They are known to enhance mood and reduce anxiety and depression, and they also provide vital services in the gut, where they produce mucus that lines the intestinal walls and enhance signaling among different types of immune cells. Thus their reduced presence in the gut caused by pesticides may contribute to many if not all diseases affecting the brain-gut axis.

[…]

This has led many scientists to adopt pioneering microbiologist Lynn Margulis’s proposal that humans and most other multicellular organisms should be viewed as “holobonts,” that is a single organism comprising a host and one or more symbionts — generally microbes.

It would encourage a paradigm shift away from the pesticide industry’s assumption that its products’ effects are siloed and target only specific agricultural pests. Not even a monoculture field is free of trillions of microbes on its plants, in its soil, and in its water. Many of these are beneficial and may have their own ability to control pests.

The pesticide industry has turned a blind eye to the effects its products have on thousands of non-target organisms, and microbes may be the most significant of all.

Although as usual more research is needed, the trajectory of scientific understanding regarding humans and the microbial world curves toward reduction of pesticide use in favor of striking a balance within the biosphere rather than willful disregard of the interrelationship of all life.

Thus the ability of microbes to protect against pesticide exposure offers remarkable potential for mitigating the harms caused by the indiscriminate effects of pesticides.

But we do not have to wait until research can offer specific means of using microbes in this way. We can reduce our exposure now.

Beyond Pesticides encourages the consumption of organic foods to decrease pesticide levels in one’s body, both to reduce the risk of chronic metabolic diseases and to ingest a wider variety of beneficial microbes.

Supporting organic agriculture helps farmers and other consumers to make the transition away from pesticide-driven agriculture. Regenerative organic agriculture can restore microbial health to soils, which may ameliorate problems caused by pesticides’ damage to host-microbe relationships in plants, insects, aquatic organisms and others.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pesticides-harmful-effect-gut-brain-axis/

Do Animals Self-Medicate?

Analysis by Tessa Lena

Via Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance“Zoopharmacognosy” is a type of animal behavior in which animals self-medicateMany species of animals are known to select and ingest or topically apply plants, soils and insects with medicinal properties, in order to prevent or reduce the harmful effects of pathogens, toxins, etc.Baboons in Ethiopia eat the leaves of a plant to combat the flatworms that cause schistosomiasisFruit flies lay eggs in plants containing high ethanol levels when they detect parasitoid wasps, a way of protecting their offspringRed and green macaws, along with many animals, eat clay to aid digestion and kill bacteriaPregnant elephants in Kenya eat the leaves of some trees to induce delivery

People often assume that animals are “passive” beings who know nothing and don’t have cognitive processes like we do. Personally, I think it’s very arrogant to think that. Any pet owner or anyone who spends time around animals knows that animals have personalities and emotions just like us, and that their behavior is usually “thought through.”

Zoopharmacognosy

In the 1980s, a new branch of science was born, dedicated to “zoopharmacognosy,” meaning “animals’ knowledge of medicine.” In the words of the wildlife researcher Michael Huffman, it stands for “what an animal does to maintain homeostasis and how not to feel bad.”

The discipline came out of the scientists’ observations of animals medicating themselves. On a side note, it is fascinating to me how human beings have been aware of this type of animal behavior for millennia — and even learning about certain plants by watching animals self-medicate — but the buzzword, the “scientific” term for it appeared only when credentialed western experts said so. A funny world!

Animals Treat Themselves Against Parasites

Surprise! Many animals rid themselves of parasites by using substances and plants with rough surfaces to clean and “detox” — and by seeking out and eating medicinal herbs.

For example, giant humpback whales have been recently caught on camera rolling around on sandy seabeds, “to shed parasites that live on their skin, known as ectoparasites, which can make the whales less hydrodynamic.” A number of primates seem to seek out medicinal plants to fight pathogens and eliminate parasites.

Fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) select plants with high ethanol content for laying eggs when in the presence of endoparasoid wasps — whose “babies” feed on fruit fly “babies” but die from consuming too much ethanol. When detecting endoparasitoid wasps, fruit flies lay their eggs in leaves with high ethanol content as a means of protection for their offspring.1

These wasps, especially those of the Leptopilina genus, inject their eggs in approximately 80% of fruit fly larvae.2 As the wasp eggs develop, they consume the larvae. As the wasps are consuming more of the larvae, they also consume more ethanol, which kills the wasps. This type of behavior is called “transgenerational prophylaxis.”3

Adult monarch butterflies prefer to lay their eggs on toxic plants such as milkweed, which reduces parasite growth in their offspring caterpillars. Pigs love to wallow in the mud, and one of the reasons they do it is to get rid of external parasites.

Woolly bear caterpillars (Grammia incorrupta) are sometimes lethally infected by tachinid flies. If infected, they ingest plant toxins called pyrrolizidine alkaloids, which confers resistance against the flies. Notably, parasitized caterpillars are more likely than non-parasitized caterpillars to specifically ingest large amounts of pyrrolizidine alkaloids, and excessive ingestion of these toxins reduces the survival of non-parasitized caterpillars.4

Sparrows have been noticed to integrate cigarette butts into their nests. Researchers believe that it is not a random choice of nesting material, and that the sparrows have somehow figured out that nicotine residue impedes parasitic mites. The tobacco hornworm ingests nicotine which reduces colony growth and toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis, leading to increased survival of the hornworm.5

Ants infected with Beauveria bassiana, a fungus, selectively consume harmful substances (reactive oxygen species, ROS) upon exposure to a fungal pathogen, yet avoid these in the absence of infection.6,7

According to a 2022 paper published in European Journal of Wildlife Research, during cold and rainy seasons, the crested porcupines (Hystrix cristata) in Central Italy often become infected by different species of ectoparasites and endoparasites. During this time porcupines actively seek out a rather large variety of medicinal plants, mostly with antiparasitic properties. Those plants appear to be relieving the symptoms of the infections, for example, inflammation.8

More than 200 species of song birds “wipe” themselves with ants, a behavior known as “anting.” Birds either grasp ants in their beaks and wipe them along the spine of each feather down to the base, or sometimes roll in ant hills so the ants crawl through their feathers. Birds most commonly use ants that spray formic acid. In lab tests, this acid is harmful to feather lice. Its vapor alone can kill them.9,10

Here is what the 2014 article titled, “Animals that self-medicate,” published on the NIH website, had to say:

“A wide range of animals self-prescribe the plants around them when they need a remedy.

Bears, deer, elk, and various carnivores, as well as great apes, are known to consume medicinal plants apparently to self-medicate.Some lizards are believed to respond to a bite by a venomous snake by eating a certain root to counter the venom.Baboons in Ethiopia eat the leaves of a plant to combat the flatworms that cause schistosomiasis.Fruit flies lay eggs in plants containing high ethanol levels when they detect parasitoid wasps, a way of protecting their offspring.Red and green macaws, along with many animals, eat clay to aid digestion and kill bacteria.Female woolly spider monkeys in Brazil add plants to their diet to increase or decrease their fertility.Pregnant lemurs in Madagascar nibble on tamarind and fig leaves and bark to aid in milk production, kill parasites, and increase the chances of a successful birth.Pregnant elephants in Kenya eat the leaves of some trees to induce delivery.

In the 1960s, the Japanese anthropologist Toshisada Nishida observed chimpanzees in Tanzania eating aspella leaves, which had no nutritional value. Harvard primatologist Richard Wrangham saw the same behavior at Jane Goodall’s Gombe reserve, where chimps were swallowing leaves whole … In 1996, biologist Michael Huffman suggested the chimps were self-medicating.

Huffman, an American who has worked for years in Japan at the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University, first saw a parasite-ridden, constipated chimpanzee in Tanzania chew on the leaves of a noxious plant it would normally avoid. By the next day, the chimpanzee was completely recovered.”11

Here is a fascinating interview with Michael Huffman from last year:

Download Interview Transcript

In 2001, Michael Huffman published an article titled, “Self-Medicative Behavior in the African Great Apes: An Evolutionary Perspective into the Origins of Human Traditional Medicine.” In the paper, he looks not just at the ways that some animals self-mediate but also at how in some cases, people learn about medicinal properties of plants by observing what animals do to treat themselves.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/29/zoopharmacognosy.aspx

Methane Actually Offsetting Its Own Heating Effect In The Atmosphere

CFR

True Activist

When it comes to climate change, greenhouse gasses are often seen as the culprit. Scientists have been searching for ways to cool the atmosphere and to make sure that man plays a huge role in helping abate the change.

These greenhouse gasses come from different products, be it industrial or agricultural. As for the most dangerous gas found in the atmosphere, methane has often been the top on the list. However, recent findings show that this may actually not be the case.

While methane has always been assumed to be harmful for the climate, and rightfully so, a new study of the greenhouse gas shows that its effects may not be as detrimental than what was once assumed by many experts.

There are different sources of methane gas emissions and the biggest ones come from coal, oil, and gas development. However, what people most know about are the emissions that come from agriculture as these have been heavily publicized in the past years.

This is how it works: the planet absorbs heat from the sun. Then, it would radiate the long-wave energy back into space. However, the presence of greenhouse gasses trap the heat inside. The heat that stays in the atmosphere is what brings about ‘the greenhouse effect’.

Scientists from the University of California-Riverside looked into this phenomenon even further. They discovered that methane also has the ability to absorb short-wave energy, which, by creating the so-called cooling clouds, it can actually cancel 30 percent of its own heat. This heat is the gas that is created in the greenhouse effect.

More importantly and specifically, methane actually creates more low-level clouds that offset the short-wave energy from the sun and less high-level clouds that increase the outward radiation of long-wave energy radiating from the Earth.

“This has implications for understanding in more detail how methane and perhaps other greenhouses gases can impact the climate system,” said Robert Allen, UCR assistant professor of Earth sciences. “Shortwave absorption softens the overall warming and rain-increasing effects but does not eradicate them at all,” he added.

They also found, as Allen stated, that methane has the innate ability to cancel as much as 60 percent of increased levels of precipitation that has been predicted under global warming models. This can be seen as something hopeful for areas that are found around zones prone to flooding.

For many reasons, this finding may be considered a revolutionary discovery because the experts from EPA say that methane’s greenhouse effect is 34 times more than that of CO2. By looking at the U.S. as an example, methane accounts for only around 10 percent of the nation’s emissions. As for the lifespan of a methane molecule in terms of its harmful effect on climate, it is said to be around 9 years.

Simply put, the methane that was found in the atmosphere 9 years ago no longer has an impact on the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, the greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules has been seen to last as long as 1,000 years.For years now, climate scientists have known that methane was a critical greenhouse gas for people to look into further. With the latest findings, experts can now create more accurate models that exactly reflect how methane is 30 percent less harmful than once assumed and how it can counteract 60 percent of its own harmful rain effects.

In a paper published in 2021, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) member, and Oxford professor of geosystem science, Myles Allen, presented how over-accounting for methane’s effect, particularly the ones that come from animal agriculture, risked “the reputation of environmental policy, and… undermining public confidence.”

While the most recent climate models don’t consider these newly-discovered effects, the new research from UC Riverside, climate forecasts will be better and more accurate when it comes to assessing CO2 vs methane emissions. This will help people in making decisions when it comes to making use of future resources to address issues of climate change.

[…]

Via https://trueactivist.com/methane-is-actually-offsetting-its-own-heating-effect-in-the-atmosphere-t1/

Spike in Deaths Corresponding to Covid Vaccine Rollout Found in Peer-Reviewed Analysis of Japan and Germany

By Eugyppius

The Daily Sceptic

‘Annual All-Cause Mortality Rate in Germany and Japan (2005 to 2022) with Focus on the COVID-19 Pandemic: Hypothesis and Trend Analyses‘ is a letter in the journal Medicine and Clinical Science by Hagen Scherb and Keiji Hayashi, comparing mortality trends across these two “highly industrialised countries, which have large and ageing populations in common”. It’s the first piece I know of to look closely at pandemic-era mortality trends in Japan – a country which provides a useful control on many fronts, because it took a relatively relaxed approach to non-pharmaceutical interventions, like many other Asian jurisdictions never saw much Covid mortality, and yet since autumn 2021 has a substantially higher vaccination rate than Germany.

This will shock you, but the results don’t look great for the vaccines.

First, the less interesting part of their analysis, namely death trends in Germany:

The first year of the pandemic coincided with slightly elevated mortality firmly within the bounds of prior trends, while the years of mass vaccination, 2021 and 2022, saw an anomalous 48,617 and 66,528 excess deaths respectively. This is roughly equal to the official Covid death tally for these years, but the analysis of Kuhbandner and Reitzner (recently published in Cureus) indicates that the virus cannot explain nearly all of them. Both the timing and the age-stratified data strongly suggest that a substantial number must be related to vaccination.

Particular interest thus attaches to Japan as a comparison case:

Whereas 2020 saw slightly above-trend mortality in Germany, it was a year of below-average deaths in Japan. 2021 was elevated but within-trend, while 2022 saw substantial excess mortality, well in excess of the deaths caused by the natural disasters of 2011. Nor can Covid explain these deaths; official Japanese virus mortality for 2022, which we know is substantially overstated in the Omicron era, amounts to only 38,870 deaths, a mere 32% of the excess.

What’s very interesting about the pandemic is its highly variable influence on all-cause mortality across the globe, and how this contrasts with the vaccines, which seem to coincide with marked upward trends almost everywhere they were widely administered.

The authors observe that “the official fear-mongering forecasts… in 2020 from COVID-19 in high income countries did not come true, neither in Japan nor in Germany”, but note that:

[I]t should be investigated to what extent the about 5-10% highly significantly increased mortalities in Germany and Japan in 2021 and 2022 might be due to the pandemic countermeasures, including the vaccinations with their possibly underestimated immediate or protracted side effects. … From this point of view, it seems possible that a high vaccination rate has contributed to an increased all-cause mortality in some countries…

Elke Bodderas, who draws attention to this analysis in Welt, notes the profound official incuriosity surrounding these numbers:

What is the RKI [the German CDC] doing now? It’s busy with many other things. It’s very interested in “an investigation of the promotion of physical activity in childcare centres, schools and sport associations – in light of pandemic restrictions.” In other areas too it shows great industry. Interesting news will certainly come from its telephone survey “on foodborne illness”, or its general study on “health in Germany today” …

Is there anyone in the RKI who worries that German intensive care units suddenly reported a 76% increase in embolic strokes in December, as hospital data of the billing portal Inek show? Or why Japan, which [Christian] Drosten praised as an “exemplary” country, saw such an outrageously high excess mortality in 2022 – more than twice as much as in the tsunami year of 2011?

No, not a single person anywhere in officialdom has demonstrated the slightest interest in these questions.

The entire success of our genius one-cool-trick pandemic measures exists in a hypothetical world. It is never anything we can see. Deaths in Germany were totally on-trend in 2020, but we’re asked to believe they would’ve been catastrophic without lockdowns. They increased substantially with the advent of mass vaccination beginning precisely April 2021, but we’re asked to believe even more would’ve died without the vaccines.

Complicit health authorities control a great many statistics, and they’ll keep truly damning numbers under lock and key as long as they can. In the meantime, the most powerful proof that the vaccination campaign was anything but a success will remain the all-cause mortality reports, which is one of the few statistics that they can’t hide. The total lack of interest in explaining these strange numbers speaks volumes.

[…]

Via https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/16/spike-in-deaths-corresponding-to-covid-vaccine-rollout-found-in-peer-reviewed-analysis-of-japan-and-germany/