Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 434

Don’t Buy Green Energy Hype

Science Matters

Frank Lasee gives the game away in his Real Clear Energy article The Expensive Impossibility of Green Hydrogen From Part-Time Wind and Solar.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There has been some new thinking from the anti-CO2 religionists. The fact that the world is desperately short of lithium and cobalt for electric vehicle batteries, at the scale they want to force, is dawning on them. There isn’t enough and likely will not be enough in the coming decades to meet the electric batteries demand. Certainly not enough for grid scale electric batteries too.

The climate alarmists haven’t let the facts get in the way of their unrealistic green fantasy of averting climate doom with part-time wind and solar. That it could somehow replace all the coal, oil, and natural gas we use, which provide us with 80% of our energy.

Except one huge, huge problem. Wind and solar produce little or no energy 70% of the time.  Reliable, full-time, on demand electricity keeps the heat going and the lights on when it is dark, and the wind is not blowing.

The new expensive, impractical, and impossible federal $9.5 billion
hydrogen subsidies talking point is wasted spending.

Green hydrogen made from wind and solar is not practical and is a very expensive form of energy storage and transport.  Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen must be created; it must be made from another energy source, just as electricity must be made from other energy.

No one is making green hydrogen at scale because it is difficult, expensive and requires major factories. Spoiler alert, there isn’t excess “green” energy – wind and solar – to make hydrogen with.

Green hydrogen requires 13 times more water than hydrogen produced.

Sea water must be desalinated first for an added cost. More water is needed for cooling. So, it is a good idea to locate hydrogen facilities near abundant water, not in the chronically short of water western U.S.

Then the water must be heated to 2,000 degrees and electrocuted. Then the hydrogen must be super chilled to near absolute zero. Then it’s compressed to 10,000 psi, three times the psi of an average scuba tank.

Then you have usable hydrogen- liquid, super- cold, compressed hydrogen.
This is an expensive energy-intensive process.

The insurmountable problem with this process is that it cannot be turned on an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset when solar panels provide the electricity. Or turned on when the wind blows and turned off when the wind stops.

Without some other energy storage device to store the “over-produced” wind and solar electricity, making green hydrogen is impossible. The costs of over-building wind and solar, then adding batteries to provide a steady stream of 24/7 electricity to make “green” hydrogen is astronomical. And in 25 years when the wind towers and solar panels wear out, or when the batteries need to be replaced every 10 years, you need to essentially start over.

Green hydrogen sounds good. And there is a well-funded industry
of selling it and obscuring the truth.

They have to cover up the facts and mislead people in order for the government and investor gravy train to keep them in business.

Canada and Germany Sign Agreement to Enhance German Energy Security with Clean Canadian Hydrogen August 2022

Don’t fall for the green or the pink hydrogen hype. It just doesn’t make sense. Apply a little common sense and critical thinking and you will join me in opposing this waste of money.

The hydrogen lobby duped congress to provide $9.5 billion for hydrogen hubs. Even red states who know this is a boondoggle are attempting to land this federal largesse.

Because it will create jobs with borrowed taxpayer money. I remind you that the US is $31 trillion in debt, with estimates it will balloon to over $50 trillion over the next decade.

These hydrogen jobs will last only as long as the subsidies do. Then like the Obama U.S. solar revolution, they will go bankrupt.

Via https://rclutz.com/2023/04/12/dont-buy-green-hydrogen-hype/

Lab-created bird flu virus accident shows lax oversight of risky ‘gain of function’ research

Allison Young

USA Today

Inside the high-security Influenza Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, two experienced scientists were pulling ferrets out of their HEPA-filtered cages on a Monday in December 2019. Another researcher, still in training, was also in the room to watch and learn.

One by one, the animals were put into a biosafety cabinet, where a solution was washed into their nostrils. It’s a procedure used to collect evidence of infection, and this particular experiment involved exposing the animals to a highly controversial lab-engineered strain of H5N1 avian influenza virus.

The virus they were working with that day was far from ordinary, and there should have been no room for the safety breach that was about to happen and the oversight failures that followed.

The experiment underway involved one of two infamous lab-made bird flu viruses that had alarmed scientists around the world when their creation became widely known nearly a decade earlier. In each case, scientists had taken an avian influenza virus that was mostly dangerous to birds and manipulated it in ways that potentially increased its threat to humans.

In nature, the H5N1 virus has rarely infected humans. But when people have been sickened, usually through close contact with infected birds, more than half died. So it is fortunate that the H5N1 virus isn’t capable of spreading easily from person to person. If the virus were ever to evolve in ways that gave it that ability, it could cause a devastating pandemic.

‘Gain of function’ research created controversial flu viruses

And yet in late 2011 the world learned that two scientific teams – one in Wisconsin, led by virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka, and another in the Netherlands, led by virologist Ron Fouchier – had potentially pushed the virus in that direction. Each of these labs had created H5N1 viruses that had gained the ability to spread through the air between ferrets, the animal model used to study how flu viruses might behave in humans.

The ultimate goal of this work was to help protect the world from future pandemics, and the research was supported with words and funding by two of the most prominent scientists in the United States: Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Kawaoka contended it would be “irresponsible not to study” how the virus might evolve in nature. “Some people have argued that the risks of such studies – misuse and accidental release, for example – outweigh the benefits. I counter that H5N1 viruses circulating in nature already pose a threat,” he said at the time.

Yet these groundbreaking scientific feats set off a heated international debate over the ethics and safety of “gain of function” research. The controversy continues to this day.

Concerns about the safety of biological research have taken on heightened urgency in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and growing acceptance of the possibility that it was caused by a lab accident in China. In February, it was revealed that analysts at the U.S. Department of Energy had joined the FBI in leaning toward a lab accident as the most likely source of the pandemic, though other U.S. intelligence agencies lean toward a natural origin or are undecided.

The story of how the H5N1 viruses came to be created – and how the University of Wisconsin and the Kawaoka lab would later respond to the 2019 safety breach during the ferret experiment – raises uncomfortable questions about the tremendous trust the world places in these kinds of labs.

We are trusting that every hour of every day their layers of laboratory containment equipment are working properly, that all of their employees are sufficiently trained, qualified and attentive, and that their written safety and incident response protocols are followed in real-life practice.

When something goes wrong, we are trusting that the labs will immediately notify local public health officials who are responsible for preventing outbreaks and the federal authorities who oversee the safety of experiments with genetically engineered organisms.

Given that so much about this work is shrouded in secrecy, what happened in Wisconsin raises the question: Should the public give this trust blindly?

[…]

Scientist’s air hose detached in lab while working with engineered virus

When the accident happened on Dec. 9, 2019, Kawaoka’s three scientists were working in an enhanced biosafety level 3 agriculture lab suite at the University of Wisconsin’s Influenza Research Institute.

This facility had been built specifically for Kawaoka’s research and featured labs with negative air pressure, watertight and airtight seals, double HEPA-filtered exhaust air and redundant air handling systems.

The experiment they were performing involved a virus whose name describes the components of its engineering: VN1203HA(N158D/N224K/ Q226L/T318I)/CA04. It was the virus described in Kawaoka’s controversial H5N1 gain-of-function experiments that had been published nearly eight years earlier, the NIH would later confirm in written responses to my questions.

It was the virus that had gained the concerning ability to spread between ferrets and had raised fears it could do this among humans.

On that December day, two experienced researchers from Kawaoka’s team were helping train a colleague as they collected samples from ferrets. The animals were part of a transmission experiment and had been in contact with other ferrets infected with this engineered H5N1 virus or another wild-type flu strain.

The three scientists wore several layers of personal protection equipment. One of their most important pieces of personal protective equipment was the air-purifying respirator that each wore to ensure they didn’t breathe any air from inside the the laboratory. Even though they were using a biosafety cabinet, there was always the potential for virus to be present in the room’s air.

These kinds of high-tech respirators encase workers’ heads in a protective hood with a clear face-plate. A blower attached to a belt delivers purified air through what looks like a vacuum cleaner hose that runs up the scientist’s back and attaches to the hood behind their head.

Labs are responsible for training workers how to properly assemble and use this kind of equipment.

As one of the senior researchers prepared to start collecting samples from the next round of ferrets, the trainee realized there was a problem with their respirator.

The powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) hose had somehow disconnected from the unit that supplied safe, filtered air. Instead, the detached hose dangled loose in the lab’s potentially contaminated air.

The hose was “immediately” reconnected, Wisconsin officials later said, and one of the experienced researchers radioed out to the lab’s operations manager as the trainee began the process of exiting the lab, incident records show.

The trainee was initially told to follow the lab’s quarantine procedure to keep them spreading the virus if they were infected. The university would later say this was done “out of an abundance of caution.” But at some point, a lab compliance official released the worker from quarantine.

It is unclear whether this quarantine release happened within minutes, hours or days of the incident. Nor is it clear whether university officials first consulted with any public health and oversight agencies.

Kawaoka and university officials wouldn’t agree to be interviewed and provided little information in response to my questions.

State and local health officials weren’t notified about lab accident

If there were ever a virus requiring that everyone follow safety and incident reporting rules, this was it. The system of oversight in place that day had been created in response to the international furor over this very virus.

Yet, after the trainee’s respirator hose disconnected in December 2019, the university didn’t notify local or state public health officials about the incident or consult with them before discontinuing the trainee’s quarantine, despite representations going back years indicating this would occur following “any potential exposure.”

[…]

Via https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/04/11/lab-leak-accident-h-5-n-1-virus-avian-flu-experiment/11354399002/

 

Doctors in Kentucky, California Received Millions in Bonus Payments for Vaccinating Medicaid Patients Against COVID

By  Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Documents reveal that the federal government and insurers incentivized healthcare providers in Kentucky and California to vaccinate Medicaid patients against COVID-19 by offering bonuses based on the percentage of patients successfully vaccinated.

“[This is] truly sickening and I am embarrassed for my profession by this,” Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, wrote on her Substack, where she posted several documents relating to the COVID-19 vaccine provider incentive programs.

The documents help to draw a picture of the broader effort at the federal, state and local levels to unleash a range of strategies targeting low-income and people-of-color communities, which tended to have lower vaccination rates.

The strategies included providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the creation of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for training “trusted” and “influential messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color in every state.

Nass’ revelations showed these efforts went beyond advertising, fear campaigns, payments to patients and payments to trusted community actors and included, in some cases, direct financial incentives to healthcare providers.

Kentucky: Medicaid paid doctors up to $250 per vaccinated Medicaid patient

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid in Kentucky told physicians in 2021 it would “recognize your hard work by offering incentives for helping patients make the choice to become vaccinated.”

The more people vaccinated, the higher the per-person incentive.

For physicians who treated an Anthem Medicaid cohort with a minimum of 25 patients in their practice, Anthem Medicaid offered incentives for vaccination by Sept. 1, 2021, that ranged from a $20 bonus per vaccinated person for physicians who vaccinated 30% of the cohort, to $125 per vaccinated person for those who vaccinated 75% of the cohort, with several incremental steps in between.

As time went on, the rates increased.

Between Sept. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, physicians received payments ranging from $100 per newly vaccinated person for those who vaccinated 30% of their patient cohort, to $250 per newly vaccinated person for those who vaccinated 75% of their patient cohort.

In 2022, the Anthem provider incentive program changed to a flat rate. Providers received $50 per newly vaccinated Medicaid patient. This included children ages 6 months to 4 years and kids 12 and older vaccinated between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2022, and children ages 5 to 11 vaccinated between June 1 and Dec. 31, 2022.

Medi-Cal: $350 million in incentives to vaccinate low-income children, people of color

The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on Aug. 6, 2021, announced $350 million in incentive payments — $250 million to providers and $100 million for direct non-monetary payments, such as gift cards, to vaccine recipients — to encourage vaccination among Medi-Cal’s 14 million beneficiaries.

Of the $350 million, $175 million came from state general funds and $175 million from federal funding. The funding period lasted from Sept. 2, 2021, through Feb. 29, 2022.

The program offered incentives to managed care plans in the name of “health equity.” In the press release, DHCS Director Will Lightborne said that raising rates among Medi-Cal beneficiaries was essential because “California will only be safe when everyone is safe.”

Nass noted that this program was rolled out one day after Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN the vaccines don’t prevent virus transmission. “That’s clearly a contradiction,” Nass told The Defender.

The funding targeted Medicaid recipients with low vaccine uptake — the homebound, communities of color, youth ages 12 to 25 and people ages 50 to 64 with multiple chronic conditions — and incentivized outreach and vaccination activities for providers and pharmacies.

At the time of the announcement, only 45.6% of Medi-Cal beneficiaries age 12 and over had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, compared to over 76% of Californians overall.

The DHCS funding included payments to community-based organizations, food banks, advocacy groups and faith-based organizations. This key strategy of funding grassroots leaders to act as “grassroots” proxies spreading the federal government’s vaccine message was widespread throughout the pandemic.

Providers could also couple this grant with a CAIRVaxGrant, which offered providers up to $10,000 to enter all of their historical electronic health record immunizations into the California Immunization Registry (CAIR).

The grant stipulated that after startup costs, payments would be directly tied to “meeting specific vaccination goals,” similar to the Kentucky program.

The incentive payment structure under the California plan was complex, paying a financial reward to healthcare providers who met particular benchmarks that varied by county and demographic but overall increased the percentage of vaccinated patients among their Medicare beneficiaries.

Under this incentive structure, providers had to meet particular vaccination targets in order to get paid. Those who were especially successful in increasing vaccination rates in the target groups would be entered into a “high performance pool,” receiving extra money for substantially moving the vaccination rates for Medicaid recipients 75% higher than baseline or within 10% of a given county’s general rate.

In the equation that determined the incentive payment structure, different demographic groups were weighted differently. For example, vaccine recipients ages 12 to 25 were weighted more highly than older recipients and those in the two racial/ethnic groups with the lowest uptake were also given greater weight.

By Jan. 21 of this year, despite this $250 million push, Medi-Cal vaccination had only increased to 52.9%.

Medicaid pays doctors more to administer COVID vaccines than other shots

As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, the Biden administration fully funded the COVID-19 vaccination program, making vaccines free regardless of health insurance status.

To cover the costs of the uninsured and underinsured, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) paid provider costs of vaccine administration through an Uninsured Program and a COVID-19 Coverage Assistance Fund.

Reimbursements were based on national Medicare rates, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which sets those rates, increased the reimbursement rate over time. Through March 14, 2021, HRSA paid $28.93 for a single-dose vaccine or for the second dose in a series of 2, and $16.94 for the first dose in a series of two.

On March 15, 2021, those rates increased to $40 per dose and $75.50 for an “in-home” dose of the vaccine.

Nass said the initial payments were in line with Medicaid payments for other vaccines, but the increased payment marked a departure from the usual reimbursement structure.

Usually, all CMS changes to Medicare payments for specific services must go through notice and comment rulemaking, but “to save time during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency bypassed that route before increasing payments for administering the vaccines,” JAMA reported.

CMS said the higher payments were meant to help expand COVID-19 vaccination, supporting “actions taken by providers, such as growing existing vaccination sites, conducting patient outreach and education, and hiring additional staff,” Healthcare Finance News reported.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/doctors-bonus-payments-covid-vaccine-medicaid/

FBI sought to develop sources in Catholic churches to combat domestic terrorism

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, conducts a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on March 9. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) By Thomas Catenacci | Fox News

University of Chicago student and The Chicago Thinker managing editor Evita Duffy discusses the FBI’s internal memo warning against ‘radical traditionalist Catholic ideology.’

The FBI recently sought to develop sources inside Christian churches and Catholic dioceses as part of an effort to combat domestic terrorism, according to internal documents released by House Judiciary Committee on Monday.

The internal documents — obtained last month by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., who are also members of the so-called Weaponization Subcommittee — showed the FBI planned to use churches as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.” The federal law enforcement agency also aimed to specifically target “mainline Catholic parishes” as part of its efforts.

In addition, according to Jordan, the FBI expressed interest in “leverag[ing] existing sources and/or initiat[ing] Type 5 Assessments to develop new sources with the placement and access.” And, in another example, the agency cited a desire to to sensitize religious congregations “to the warning signs of radicalization and enlist their assistance to serve as suspicious activity tripwires.”

“Based on the limited information produced by the FBI to the Committee, we now know that the FBI relied on at least one undercover agent to produce its analysis, and that the FBI proposed that its agents engage in outreach to Catholic parishes to develop sources among the clergy and church leadership to inform on Americans practicing their faith,” Jordan wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday.

Jordan also issued a subpoena for a series of related documents the committee previously requested from the FBI, but which the FBI has failed to provide.Q

“This information is outrageous and only reinforces the Committee’s need for all FBI material responsive to our request,” Jordan wrote to Wray. “The documents produced to date show how the FBI sought to enlist Catholic houses of worship as potential sources to monitor and report on their parishioners.”

“Americans attend church to worship and congregate for their spiritual and personal betterment,” the letter continued. “They must be free to exercise their fundamental First Amendment rights without worrying that the FBI may have planted so-called “tripwire” sources or other informants in their houses of worship.”

 Jordan and Johnson first requested related documents from the FBI on Feb. 16, days after former FBI agent and whistleblower Kyle Seraphin published an internal document originating from the FBI’s Richmond Field Office that appeared to outline a plan to “mitigate the threat of Radical-Traditionalist Catholics.”

The leaked document generated widespread condemnation from Republican lawmakers who said the FBI’s efforts may violate the Constitution.

However, the original letter from Jordan and Johnson went unanswered prompting a follow-up request on March 20. Three days later, the FBI produced the 18-page document Jordan announced on Monday.

“The FBI received the subpoena,” the FBI told Fox News Digital in a statement. “The FBI recognizes the importance of congressional oversight and remains fully committed to cooperating with Congress’s oversight requests consistent with its constitutional and statutory responsibilities. The FBI is actively working to respond to congressional requests for information –including voluntary production of documents.”

The agency also referred Fox News Digital to recent comments Wray made during congressional testimony in which he said he was “aghast” when he saw reports about the FBI targeting Catholics.

“We took steps immediately to withdraw it and remove it from FBI systems. It does not reflect FBI standards,” Wray added. “We do not conduct investigations based on religious affiliation or practices, full stop. We have also now ordered our inspection division to take a look at how this happened and try to figure out how we can make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”

[…]

Via https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-sought-develop-sources-catholic-churches-internal-documents-show

How Many Millions Are Disabled or Injured From the Jab?

Dr MercolaStory at-a-glanceThe 2022 U.S. Vaccine Damage Report revealed a sobering glimpse into the true carnage that occurred at the hands of the COVID-19 shot campaignCOVID-19 shots resulted in 300,000 excess deaths, 26.6 million injuries and 1.36 million disabilitiesTotal economic costs due to the shots are estimated at $147.8 billion, including $89.9 billion from related injuries, $52.2 billion from disabilities and $5.6 billion from excess deathsA preprint systematic review found the mRNA-based COVID shots increased the risk of myocarditis, with a mortality of about 1 to 2 per 200 casesEvidence of serious neurological harms, including Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myasthenic disorder and stroke, which are likely due to an autoimmune reaction, was also found from the shots

We’re beginning to see the fallout from the mass COVID-19 shot campaign, which has been referred to as the “greatest violation of medical ethics in the history of medicine, maybe humanity.”1

Former BlackRock analyst and fund manager Edward Dowd is one of the few trying to get the word out about COVID-19 shot risks, and he’s been using data and statistics to prove his point and publicize the undeniable increase in deaths and disability among young, healthy adults that has occurred since the shots’ widespread rollout.2

This group — the 148 million employed Americans between the ages of 18 and 643 — is typically a healthy crowd. This is why private insurance companies love to sell group life insurance policies to large Fortune 500 corporations and mid-sized companies —they hardly ever have to pay out on a claim. But this is changing.

Dowd’s 2022 U.S. Vaccine Damage Report4 revealed a sobering glimpse into the true carnage that occurred at the hands of the COVID-19 shot campaign, and its results are striking.

300K Excess Deaths, Millions of Injuries, Billions in Costs

Dowd and colleagues published their 2022 Vaccine Damage Project at their website, Phinance Technologies.5 It revealed the following estimated human and economic costs:6

Human CostEconomic Cost26.6 million injuries1.36 million disabilities300,000 excess deathsTotal: $147.8 billionInjuries: $89.9 billionDisabilities: $52.2 billionExcess deaths: $5.6 billion[…]

The report included data from employed individuals between the ages of 16 and 64, and categorized the impact into four broad groups:

No effect or asymptomaticMild to moderate outcome including a temporary or short-term, long-term or permanent injurySevere outcome that leads to a disabilityExtreme outcome leading to death

While group 1 was the largest, comprising an estimated 82% of the population, the authors pointed out that these groups are dynamic, and individuals in one group could move into another, particularly in the case of progressing from no or minor injury to severe injury, such as we’ve seen with elite athletes suddenly dropping dead on the field:8

[…]

‘The Multiplier Effects Are Massive’

The effects in the report are only what can currently be measured, and are likely to also be fluid. In terms of economic effects, for instance, the report notes that mortuary companies are likely to benefit while life insurers will be harmed, leading to a reallocation of resources.

Meanwhile, in terms of economic costs, milder damage is associated with greater cost, since a larger portion of working age individuals are affected. For instance, those with mild to moderate injury made up a sizeable 18% of the population. According to the report:9

“We make the assumption that the pool of potentially vaccine-injured individuals is about 18% of the population, which is, the rate of related adverse events reported in the Pfizer clinical trial (minus the baseline rate). These injuries will likely manifest a loss of productivity since, as these individuals are likely to have higher absentee rates and, consequently, higher lost worktime rates, than the pre-2019 baseline.

In fact, we performed an analysis of absence rates and lost worktime rates10 in full time workers (using data provided by the BLS). We observed a large increase in absence rates starting in 2020, but accelerating in 2022. Absence rates in 2022 were about 28.6% higher than in 2019, representing a 11 standard deviation variation.”

 

[…]Systematic Review Reveals Serious Harms

A preprint systematic review of papers with data on serious adverse events associated with COVID-19 shots again points to significant risks.12 The review was conducted by Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., a former medical scientist with the University of Adelaide and former reporter for ABC News in Australia and Professor Peter Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993.

It included 18 systematic reviews, 14 randomized trials and 34 other studies, noting that “most studies were of poor quality” and additional randomized trials are needed. Still, their review revealed multiple red flags, including:13

Adenovirus vector vaccines increased the risk of venous thrombosis and thrombocytopeniamRNA-based shots increased the risk of myocarditis, with a mortality of about 1 to 2 per 200 casesEvidence of serious neurological harms, including Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myasthenic disorder and stroke, which are likely due to an autoimmune reaction, was foundSevere harms, defined as those that prevent daily activities, were underreported in the randomized trialsSevere harms were very common in studies of booster doses after a full round of shots and in a study of vaccination of previously infected people

Further, not only have drug regulators and public health authorities been slow to follow up on safety signals showing serious harms from the shots, Demasi notes, but, “Population-wide recommendations for COVID vaccination and boosters ignore the negative benefit to harm balance in low-risk groups such as children and people who have already recovered from covid-19 (natural immunity).”14

Australian Safety Report — 24-Fold Increase in Adverse Events

It’s can be difficult to parse out adverse effects from COVID-19 shots and those due to COVID-19 infection. The Western Australia Vaccine Safety Surveillance (WAVSS) 2021 Report, however, shows a unique viewpoint that made this possible. At the time, there was virtually no COVID-19 circulating in the community, yet the area had a 90% vaccination rate among those 12 years and over.15

[…]So, what happened in an area of the world that had very few COVID-19 cases and very high rates of COVID-19 shots? An “exponential increase” in reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI), such that it necessitated changes to the vaccine safety surveillance program at the department in order to manage them.17 According to the report:18

“The number of AEFI reported to WAVSS was significantly higher in 2021 than in previous years (10,726 compared with an average of 276 per year for the 2017-2020 period) due to the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccination program.”

As Umbrella News reported, the peak of AEFI reports coincided with the rollout of shot mandates, culminating in a rush of hospitalizations that strained area hospitals:19

[…]

Other standouts from WA’s report include a 35% increase in myocarditis and a 25% increase in pericarditis compared to background rates. “Shockingly,” Umbrella News noted, “the risk of pericarditis in the age group in the age group 25 to 29 years old was 53.5 cases per 100,000 doses of Spikevax. It is perhaps unsurprising that chest pain was the fifth most common reported AEFI for COVID vaccines in 2021.”20

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/04/11/millions-disabled-injured-from-covid-jab.aspx/

Silenced: A New NZ Documentary About Censorship

Silenced

Directed by Samantha Blanchard (2023)

Film Review

This 2023 New Zealand film features in-depth interviews with New Zealand sociologist Jodie Bruning and two high profile Kiwis, a long time TV/radio presenter and a GP, who  lost decades-long careers for speaking out about the dangers of Pfizer’s experimental Covid jab. A third hero, Auckland epidemiologist Simon Thornley, was advised by his attorney not to participate in this film. Instead it features a segment from TV One’s current affairs program Q & A, in which Thornley challenges Jacinda Ardern’s Covid narrative.*

Peter Williams, a major TV/radio personality in New Zealand for over 40 years, resigned as a radio announcer after his producer gave him a direct order not to interview attorney Sue Grey on his program after she successfully challenged the legality of the emergency rollout of the Pfizer vaccine to the country’s entire adult population. Williams was already in hot water for directing listeners to social media sites challenging the non-scientific basis of the government’s Covid narrative, including Voices for Freedom, New Zealand Doctors Speaking out with Science (NZDSOS) and journalist and statistician Guy Hatchard.

In addition to discussing his personal experiences, Williams also points out the massive funding the New Zealand government provided mainstream New Zealand media to promote Covid vaccination. Whereas traditionally the top purchasers of TV and radio advertising have been Toyota, MacDonald’s, Warehouse, Spark and Harvey Norman, in 2021 and 2022, most of their ads were replaced by constant government pro-vaccine messages.

Dr Anne Riley, long time (40 years) much loved Nelson GP, talks about being disciplined by the New Zealand Medical Council after appearing in a YouTube video with a high school student concerned about the impending vaccine roll-out in teenagers. The Medical Council’s began by sending her a so-called “voluntary undertaking.” It required her to sign an agreement not to distribute any pamphlets or participate in social media and to refer any patients seeking to discuss Covid vaccination to other doctors.

After amending (deleting the bits she disagreed with and providing detailed research supporting her position), she signed the third “voluntary undertaking” she received. In response, the Medical Council notified her in December 2021 that her medical registration had been suspended. After they informed her, it would take two years to appeal the suspension to the Medical Council Disciplinary Tribunal, she voluntary relinquished her medical license. She now serves on the steering committee of NZDSOS.

In the documentary, Riley is highly critical of the government’s decision to ban Ivermectin for prophylaxis and treatment of Covid infection. As she explains, banning Ivermectin was essential in both the US and New Zealand, as legislation in both countries only permits emergency licensing of experimental treatments (such as the Pfizer vaccine) in the absence of effective treatments.

The film also includes footage of Dr Pierre Kory, co-founder of the US group Frontline Covid-19 Clinical Care Alliance (FLCC) testifying to the US Senate about the US government deliberately suppressing the use of Ivermectin in prophylaxis and treatment of Covid. They note that YouTube famously took down Kory’s Senate testimony, a moved questioned by the mainstream Wall Street Journal. See YouTube Cancels the Senate

*Thornley was one of the first to speak out in mid-2021, criticizing the the unprecedented decision to lock down the entire New Zealand population instead of taking steps to protect the populations at risk for severe Covid infections (elderly, obese, chronically ill, etc);

View film free at

Silenced

Switzerland Stops Recommending COVID Vaccines, Citing High Level of Immunity

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

In a move that shifts liability for COVID-19 vaccine injuries from the government to physicians, Switzerland said it is not recommending COVID-19 vaccines for spring and summer, even for those people considered to be high risk.

Switzerland is the latest European country to stop recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for the general population.

A new set of guidelines issued by the country’s Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) and Federal Commission for Vaccination does not recommend the vaccine for individuals, including those considered at high risk, for the spring and summer seasons.

According to Medical Daily, Swiss medical authorities cited the high level of immunity in society, either via vaccination or natural immunity, as the basis for their new recommendations.

“In principle, no COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for spring/summer 2023,” the FOPH said. “Nearly everyone in Switzerland has been vaccinated and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19. Their immune system has therefore been exposed to the coronavirus.”

Swiss seroprevalence data from mid-2022 indicates more than 98% of the country’s population had developed antibodies against COVID-19, The Epoch Times reported.

According to Swiss Info, “In Switzerland, about 70% of the population have had at least one COVID [vaccine] dose, a figure that has barely moved over the past year. Only 11.5% got a booster jab in the past six months.”

Swiss public health officials also said data indicate COVID-19 will circulate less this year, with newer variants that cause milder illness than previous strains.

The decision to not recommend the vaccines will be reevaluated for the autumn and winter seasons, according to public health authorities. Medical Daily reported that the new recommendations would be “adjusted if a new wave of infection were to emerge.”

Liability for vaccine injuries shifts to doctors

According to Swiss outlet Report 24, as per the new recommendation, doctors can only administer the COVID-19 vaccines on a case-by-case basis and under certain conditions.

Medical Daily, citing the FOPH, reported that high-risk individuals, including those 65 and older, the immunocompromised and pregnant women, can still receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but only after an individual consultation with their doctor.

When a vaccine is recommended, it is advised that it be administered at least six months after the last vaccination or last-known COVID-19 infection.

The FOPH further advised:

“Even particularly vulnerable people are currently not recommended a COVID-19 vaccination. However, you can get a vaccination after individual consultation with your doctor.

“Vaccination may be wise in individual cases, as it improves protection against developing severe COVID-19 for several months. This applies regardless of the number of vaccinations you have already received.”

However, the FOPH also noted that the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines against current variants is diminished and short-lived, especially in individuals who are considered at-risk, according to Report 24.

The FOPH also found that the adaptation of mRNA vaccines has not kept pace with the evolution of new COVID-19 strains.

The new recommendations also have important implications relating to issues such as payment for the vaccines and vaccine-related liability.

“By no longer recommending the vaccines, this would mean that vaccination is not covered by the government anymore,” Medical Daily reported. “Non-high-risk individuals who want to get the vaccine or the booster would have to pay for it.”

For high-risk individuals advised to be vaccinated, health insurance would cover the cost of vaccination.

Under the new recommendations, there is a shift in vaccine-related liability as well. According to guidelines implemented by the FOPH on Nov. 29, 2022, the Swiss government provides compensation to vaccine-injured individuals only in cases where the vaccination is recommended by public health authorities.

As a result, liability now shifts to the doctors administering the vaccines. According to Report 24, this “should mean that their willingness to vaccinate will decrease significantly.”

Swiss Info reported that on Jan. 23, Dr. Christoph Berger, head of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital Zurich and chair of the Federal Commission for Vaccination, said the COVID-19 vaccines achieved the Swiss government’s goals of protecting the vulnerable and easing pressures on the healthcare system.

However, despite arguing that “vaccination benefits far outweigh the risks,” Berger qualified this statement by saying “It is clear that there are undesirable vaccination symptoms, including severe ones. We must take these people and their suffering seriously and help them too.”

“There is as yet no clear diagnosis of this post-vac syndrome. The term is a collective pot for various symptoms that could at least have a temporal connection with the vaccination. Maybe the connection is causal or not,” he added.

Similar remarks were made by Germany’s Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach — previously a proponent of a national vaccine mandate who once stated COVID-19 vaccines have “no side effects” — on March 12.

Several countries, WHO also revised COVID vaccine recommendations

Switzerland is not the only European country to stop recommending the COVID-19 vaccines.

In April 2022, Denmark suspended its national COVID-19 vaccination campaign and shifted to a targeted approach. And as of Feb. 12, the U.K. stopped recommending boosters for healthy individuals and discontinued free distribution of the primary two-dose series of COVID-19 vaccines.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also made changes to its recommendations.

On March 28, the WHO announced that its Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization “revised the roadmap for prioritizing the use of COVID-19 vaccines, to reflect the impact of Omicron and high population-level immunity due to infection and vaccination.”

The new roadmap shifts away from a universal COVID-19 vaccination recommendation, instead categorizing individuals into one of three “priority-use groups,” with the ongoing administration of boosters recommended only for the “high priority group.”

This group includes “older adults; younger adults with significant comorbidities (e.g. diabetes and heart disease); people with immunocompromising conditions (e.g. people living with HIV and transplant recipients), including children aged 6 months and older; pregnant persons; and frontline health workers.”

“The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children,” the WHO stated.

The revised recommendations come as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to recommend the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines for unvaccinated individuals and, according to Medical Daily, is set to authorize a second bivalent booster in the coming weeks.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/switzerland-stops-covid-vaccines-immunity/

Crypto Mining Operations Add to Air, Water and Noise Pollution

By Brett Wilkins

Common Dreams

A report published last week by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) examines how the “mining” process behind popular cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, Dogecoin and Monero creates a wide range of pollution that is harming communities and fueling the climate emergency.

The EWG report — entitled “Proof of Problems: Bitcoin Mining’s Pollution Toll on U.S. Communities” — profiles six case studies of adverse effects of the cryptocurrency mining process known as “proof-of-work.”

“This report vividly shows how proof-of-work crypto-mining operations are contributing to increased air, water, and noise pollution in many communities across the U.S.,” EWG policy director and report co-author Jessica Hernandez said in a statement.

“It amplifies the voices of those who are fighting to save their homes and livelihoods from the bitcoin mines invading their communities,” Hernandez added. “The industry cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the real-world harm it is causing or greenwash the problem away.”

Our new analysis showcases the devastating environmental impact of #Bitcoin mining on communities across the nation. #ChangeTheCodehttps://t.co/lIG32P0hP8

— EWG (@ewg) April 5, 2023

As an executive summary of the report details:

“Not all Bitcoin mines are alike. Some rely on the resurrection of dormant fossil fuel power plants, some find low-cost high-pollution fuel sources like burning coal waste in Pennsylvania, and others flare gas from oil wells to generate the necessary electricity, like the mines blighting Montana’s scenery.

“They all use the same technology, individual computer hardware no bigger than a shoe box or two, all competing to solve the same puzzle and earn a few bitcoin. But it takes thousands of these mining computers, called rigs, to become competitive in the mining industry. That’s why some companies are placing multiple shipping crates full of Bitcoin mining rigs in communities across the U.S.

“What these mines have in common is their use of proof-of-work, which is wasteful by design. This system, a type of software to record and manage Bitcoin transactions, has proven highly inefficient, requiring massive amounts of fossil fuel-generated electricity to operate.

“Proof-of-work is a source of constant noise, a blight in communities across the country, and a hotbed of fraud and corruption that bilks consumers and ratepayers out of billions of dollars.”

“Despite staunch opposition nearly everywhere bitcoin is mined, Wall Street bankers and other large financial backers manage to continue this assault on climate and communities across the country,” the report states. “Change is needed, and it’s needed urgently.”

One of the report’s case studies shows how a Blockstream mining center in Adel, Georgia created so much noise that the residents of one nearby house spent thousands of dollars to install 11 layers of insulation as the constant din damaged their hearing and kept them captive in their own home.

“It sounds like 1,000 jet engines taking off at one time. You can hear it five miles away from here,” said Annette Tiveron, who lives in the house. “It ripples our pond from the vibration with the machines. It’s literally shaking your brain.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/crypto-mining-operations-air-water-noise-pollution-cd/?utm_id=20230410

Texas Bill Could Create State-Issued Digital Currency Backed by Gold

Posted BY: | NwoReport

Texas lawmakers are considering setting up a Texas digital currency backed by gold.

Senate Bill 2334 filed in the state legislature would allow the comptroller to establish a digital currency that is fully backed by gold and fully redeemable in cash or gold. A similar bill was filed in the Texas House.

“The comptroller shall establish a digital currency that is backed by gold so that each unit of the digital currency issued represents a particular fraction of a troy ounce of gold held in trust,” the bills said, adding that once someone buys the digital currency, the comptroller would use the purchased amount to “buy a fractional number of troy ounces of gold equal to the number of units of the digital currency issued to the purchaser.”

People could redeem the digital currency for gold or cash, and electronically send it to someone else.

The comptroller would also work to ensure the security of the digital currency and prevent fraud. All gold reserves backing the digital currency would be held in a trust with the Texas Bullion Depository.

The digital currency bill is just one of several bills filed in the Texas legislature relating to cryptocurrency. Other bills have been filed to aid in crypto mining and to officially welcome the Bitcoin economy to the state.

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/texas-bill-could-create-state-issued-digital-currency-backed-by-gold/

 

What are Psychodelic Assisted Therapies and Should We Be Hopeful?

On Psychology and Neuroscience

Over the past few years, psychedelic assisted therapies have become a more mainstream discussion. Having first been considered back in the 1950s, they were quickly put to the side due to backlash from the government against the stigma of psychedelics like LSD (Gardner et al., 2019).

Back then, there was a large “counter cultural movement” and the groups of people apart of this movement frequently used many psychedelics (Gardner et al., 2019). As a result, the government started a campaign against psychedelics, using the media to convince the population that these drugs could cause chromosomal damage and alter the minds of the users (Gardner et al., 2019). During this time, Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act and placed psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin as schedule 1 drugs, meaning that they had high risk for abuse and had no foreseeable medical use (Gardner et al., 2019). Of course, we now know that this was an overreaction, as was the entire war on drugs which began around this time.

As we have begun to become more open minded about the potential use of “illicit” drugs for therapeutic treatments, it begs the question, what exactly is psychedelic assisted therapy? Psychedelic assisted therapy is the use of psychedelics (to no surprise) to help treat disorders such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD, and it isn’t anything new (Gardner et al., 2019; Luoma et al., 2020; Schenberg, 2018; Vargas et al., 2020).

Psychedelics have been used for therapeutic purposes for a long time, in many religious practices and traditional healing practices (Gardner et al., 2019). Today, psychedelic assisted therapies start with a therapist who is a mental health professional. They typically start with a few sessions before the actual drug session to build a base, these are called preparatory psychotherapy sessions (Schenberg, 2018). After these preparatory sessions, then the drug is introduced.

Sometimes only one drug session is needed and sometimes upwards of twelve sessions are needed (Schenberg, 2018). Ultimately, it’s dependent on both the drug in use as well as the patient’s reaction to the drug. After the drug session, there are follow up sessions, called integrative psychotherapy sessions, where the therapist “integrates” the findings and feelings from the drug sessions with the patient (Schenberg, 2018). The whole process of psychedelic therapy is extremely controlled, with the patient always being monitored while under the influence of the drug and the primary concern always being with the wellbeing of the patient.

​​So what exactly are psychedelics doing during these sessions and are they effective? Many psychedelics are found to block 5-HT2A receptors in the neocortex with a large amount of 5-HT2A receptors existing in the prefrontal cortex (Celada et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2019).

These receptors are associated with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the same route as many SSRIs or “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors” which are used for treating depression (Celada et al., 2004). In fact, blocking of 5-HT2A receptors has been shown to aid SSRIs’ effects in treatment resistant patients with major depressive disorder (Celada et al., 2004). Across the board, in fact, almost all psychedelics used in treatment of disorders like PTSD, anxiety, and depression have been found to have a positive effect (Gardner et al., 2019; Luoma et al., 2020; Schenberg, 2018; Vargas et al., 2020).

Many of these drugs alone are showing effects in patients who have been resistant to treatment (Celada et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2019; Schenberg, 2018). And that’s a big deal. Roughly ⅔ of patients being treated for depression don’t respond to their first treatments and a little more than 50% of patients never experience a sustained remission from depression (Little, 2009).

To answer the last question of this article, should we be hopeful? Yes! There is strong evidence that psychedelics are making a difference in the treatment of many disorders like anxiety, depression, and PTSD (Gardner et al., 2019; Luoma et al., 2020; Schenberg, 2018; Vargas et al., 2020). And they are occurring in safe, controlled environments where the wellbeing of the patient is constantly monitored and they continue to receive treatment afterwards (Schenberg, 2018).

The effects of these treatments are helping those who struggled to find help before and are offering longer lasting benefits (Celada et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2019; Little, 2009; Luoma et al., 2020; Schenberg, 2018; Vargas et al., 2020). All this isn’t to say that everyone should use psychedelic assisted therapies to treat their disorders. Like any treatment, it depends on the patient and finding what will work best for them. But with more and better data coming out, we’re learning that this treatment is beneficial for many, so hopefully it begins to become more common in medicinal practices so that more people can receive the best treatment for them.

[…]

Via https://psych-neuro.com/2023/04/10/what-are-psychedelic-assisted-therapies-and-should-we-be-hopeful/