Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 451

61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot

Rasmusen Reports

Voters overwhelmingly support releasing all videos of the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and a majority think it’s likely that government agents helped provoke the riot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 80% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is important that the public be able to view all the videos of the Capitol riot, including 58% who think it’s Very Important. Only 17% don’t think it’s important for the public to be able to see all the riot videos. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is reportedly planning to broadcast videos of the Capitol riot that were not previously released by the congressional committee that investigated the riot. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Republicans, 78% of Democrats, and 75% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe it is important that the public be able to view all the videos of the Capitol riot.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is among Republicans who have expressed concern that federal agents “deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on Jan?. 6?,” when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol. Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters believe it is likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot, including 39% who think it’s Very Likely. Thirty percent (30%) don’t think it’s likely undercover agents helped provoke the riot, including 18% who say it is Not At All Likely.

The survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on February 26-28, 2023 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans, as well as 57% of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all Likely Voters believe the special congressional committee that investigated the Capitol riot did a good or excellent job, while 38% rate the special committee as having done a poor job. While 66% of Democrats rate the so-called J6 committee as having done a good or excellent job with its investigation, only 26% of Republicans and 47% of unaffiliated voters share that opinion. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Republicans give the J6 committee investigation a poor rating, as do 20% of Democrats and 40% of unaffiliated voters.

More whites (34%) than black voters (11%) or other minorities (22%) give the J6 committee an excellent rating. Majorities of every racial category believe it is important that all the video from the Capitol riot be made available to the public. Likewise, majorities of every group – 61% of whites, 62% of black voters and 64% of other minorities – think it is at least somewhat likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of self-identified conservative voters say it is Very Likely that undercover agents helped provoke the riot, compared to 18% of moderates and 26% of liberals.

There is not much “gender gap” in these findings, except that men are somewhat more likely than women voters to rate the J6 committee as having done a poor job, while women voters are slightly more likely to suspect government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot.

Voters under 40 are more likely than their elders to suspect the Capitol riot was provoked by undercover agents. Older voters are more likely to rate the J6 committees as having done a poor job with its investigation of the riot.

Breaking down the electorate by income categories, voters earning more than $200,000 a year are most likely to rate the J6 committee as having done an excellent job, while those with annual incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 are most likely to give the committee a poor rating.

Among voters who think it is Very Likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot, 88% believe it is Very Important that the public have access to all the videos of the riot.

President Joe Biden’s strongest supporters are most pleased by the J6 committee’s investigation. Among voters who Strongly Approve of Biden’s job performance as president, 90% rate the special congressional committee as having done a good or excellent job investigating the Capitol riot. By contrast, among those who Strongly Disapprove of Biden’s performance, just four percent (4%) rate the J6 committee’s work good or excellent, while 81% give the committee a poor rating.

A majority of voters don’t think President Joe Biden has kept his campaign promise to unite Americans, and one-third endorse a GOP congresswoman’s recent call for a “national divorce” between red states and blue states.

Most voters give the federal government low ratings for its response to the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

[…]

Via https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/61_believe_feds_helped_incite_capitol_riot

Blood banks accidentally admit 80% of the blood supply contaminated with spike proteins from mRNA jabs

Dr Eddy Betterman

Politicians in the state of Montana are pushing a new bill that would make it a crime for those who have been “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) to donate blood.

Citing contamination issues, Rep. Greg Kmetz (R-Miles City), the sponsor behind House Bill 645, wants to make it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine for vaccinated donors to contribute their spike protein-laden blood to the donation pool.

HB 645 would also ban people who have had a diagnosis of “long covid,” medically defined as “postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 due to chronic 27 SARS-CoV-2 viral infection,” from donating blood in Montana.

“Montana’s blood supply could be cut by up to 80%, leading to adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death,” said Cliff Numark, senior vice president of the blood collection nonprofit Vitalant, about the potential impact of the legislation.

Most blood banks are already struggling to keep up with demand, and an 80 percent reduction in available supply in the event that HB 645 passes would only make matters worse.

Montana doesn’t want to give people tainted blood transfusions

Numark’s admission about the 80 percent reduction in available clean blood is based on statistics out of Montana showing that four out of five residents have received at least one injection of a covid “vaccine” since the initial rollout of Operation Warp Speed.

Most Montanans, in other words, have tainted blood and would no longer be allowed to share that tainted blood with patients in need. The same is true in other states where uptake of the jabs was high.

Kmetz’s new legislation builds upon House Bill 702 from last session. That bill outlawed discrimination on the basis of vaccination status, though a portion of it was struck down in December as unconstitutional.

Other proponents of HB 645 include Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, vice chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee. Sheldon-Galloway’s brother is a mortician who told her that covid injections cause issues with blood flow.

“I’m one of many who believe in the God given right of medical freedom, which is having access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need,” said Jo Vilhauer, a resident of Miles City who supports HB 645. “This is a vital part of health autonomy.”

According to Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, the true percentage of tainted blood in the United States is closer to 90 percent than it is to 80 percent, meaning as little as only one in 10 donors have clean, safe blood.

This is a serious problem because those in need of a blood transfusion will have to wait a lot longer for it – if they are ever able to receive one at all, now that most of the American blood supply is loaded with toxic spike proteins and other jab ingredients.

One problem with HB 645 is that there is no way to test blood samples for spike proteins or any other evidence of covid jab contamination. It is thus a trust-based system that is impractical at best.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2023/03/02/80-percent-blood-supply-contaminated-spike-proteins-mrna-jabs/

Nuclear Waste: Is Important Decontamination Technology Being Suppressed?

Brown’s Gas: 30-Year-Old Nuclear Decontamination Technology

I first learned about Brown’s gas from an interview on Radio Out There with Nexus magazine publisher Duncan Roads. He talked about the magazine’s 200th edition, which features their top 20 top news stories (over 36 years). Roads refers to a 2017 article on Brown’s gas.[1] Although the article itself focuses solely on its health benefits, in the interview Roads also mentions its use in nuclear waste decontamination.

Owing to my involvement in a nearly 40-year campaign to clean up up the Hanford nuclear reservation in Eastern Washington, I was gobsmacked to learn that Brown’s gas, also known as HHO, oxyhydrogen, hydroxy gas and Knallgas (in Germany and Scandinavia) is but one of nine peer reviewed low cost processes for decontaminating nuclear waste.

The use of hydrolysis to produce “oxyhydrogen,” the first gaseous mixture to be used for welding, was first discovered by British chemist and inventor William Nicholson in 1800.

In 1974, Bulgarian-born electrical engineer Yull Brown obtained new patents for what came to be known as “Brown’s gas” generators, designed to split water into charged hydrogen and oxygen molecules and hydroxyl (OH) radicals via alkaline electrolysis.

Having moved to Australia in 1954, it was there he developed and manufactured the first applications for his generators. At the request of the Chinese government, in the 1990s he transferred production to the People’s Republic of China in the 1990s.[2] This would inspire Chinese manufacturers to adopt Brown’s gas, in preference to acetylene, in their welding torches. Other early Chinese applications, besides welding and brazing, included water desalination, toxic waste management and destruction, pharmaceutical production and materials hardening. In 1996, the Chinese re-invited Yull Brown to build a Brown’s gas system for deployment in automobiles.

Presently most Brown’s gas generators are produced in China, mainly for welding, brazing, health indications and improved vehicle fuel efficiency. Made in China offers 3,535 models of Brown’s gas generators online from 65 different suppliers. Prices (in US dollars) range from $78 to $42,000.

In 1992 at the request of Congressman Berkeley Bedell, US Department of Energy officials observed a demonstration in Ontario California in which a Brown’s gas torch reduced the radioactivity of Cobalt 60 by 96% in a few minutes.

In the US and other Western countries, the use of oxyhydrogen or Brown’s gas for purposes other than welding is still viewed as “fringe” science by Wikipedia, Nature and Popular Mechanics. Not so in China and South Korea, where major research into Brown’s gas is ongoing, mostly for medical indications, for use in fossil fuel vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and reduce particulate pollution and for (toxic and nuclear) waste management.

Use of Brown’s Gas to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Reduce Particulate Pollution

Among numerous peer reviewed Chinese studies incorporating Brown’s gas generators in diesel and gasoline engines to improve combustion (and fuel) efficiency are one from 2015 in Journal of Jiangsu University and from 2016 in Energy Technology.

There are also two from Jordan in 2010 and 2011 and one from Pakistan in 2020.

Owing to particulate pollution (smog) reaching dangerous levels in numerous Chinese cities, several researchers have examined the dual role of Brown’s gas generators in simultaneously reducing exhaust particulates (due to more efficient combustion) and improving fuel efficiency. These include one from India in 2014, two in 2022 in Journal of Cleaner Production and MDPI, and six between 2021-2023 in the Journal of Hydrogen Energy

Use of Brown’ Gas to Manage Waste (Including Toxic Waste)

Korean studies from 2004 and 2005 also look at the use of Brown’s gas in the vitrification of solid waste. One from 2008 looks at the use of Brown’s gas to safely vitrify asbestos and one from 2012 studies the use of a Brown gas for non-polluting waste incineration.

Health Uses

Most Brown’s gas generators, in China and elsewhere, are manufactured and sold for health indications. Based on multi-center clinical trials, China’s National Medical Administration for Respiratory Diseases authorizes Brown’s gas inhalation to treat Covid pneumonia. A 2021 paper in Emergency Medicine Journal explains the theoretical basis for its effectiveness.

There’s also 2021 Chinese study Brown’s gas treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and a 2020 paper from the University of Salzburg reviewing Brown’s gas treatment in various chronic illnesses.

Brown’s Gas in Nuclear Waste Decontamination

Although most peer-reviewed research into the role if Brown’s gas in nuclear waste decontamination is limited to theoretical explanations of its role in transmutation, it clearly justifies further investigation of this technology. On August 24, 1991, Baotou’s Nuclear Institute # 202 reported on an experiment in which treatment with Brown’s gas reduced the radioactivity of a Cobalt 60 sample by more than 50%. [3] Although there are anecdotal reports (some from Brown himself) of more recent Chinese research into the role of Brown’s gas in neutralizing radioactive nucleotides, the Chinese government has declined to release them.

In 1999 Mark Porringa, chief engineer at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, conducted an experiment using Yull Brown’s proprietary protocol on a uCi sample of Am 241, a weak alpha emitter with a half-life of 461 years. Radiation levels were reduced from over 70,000 cpm down to less than 6,000 cpm in less than a minute.

In a paper presented to 2018 Proceedings of the Second International Low Energy Nuclear, Dr Andrew Michrowski PhD and Mark Porringa make a strong case for transmutation (a process altering the nuclei of atoms to produce new, non-radioactive isotopes) being the mechanism by which Brown’s reduces radioactivity.

In 1999 in the Journal of Processing Technology and in 2001 in the Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment O-Heung Guk offers a potential mechanism (involving the production of π-rays) for the transmutations triggered by exposure to Brown’s gas.

In 2019, Slobodan Stankovic of Swiss Oxyhydrogen Energy, supported this view when he presented experimental findings to the 22nd annual conference of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science about the role of oxyhydrogen in the apparent synthesis of new elements (ie transmutation).

Other Low Energy Decontamination Technologies

Although none have been as extensively studied as Brown’s gas, the Planetary Alliance for Clean Energy (PACE) in Ottawa has put forward nine additional transmutation-based technologies for nuclear waste decontamination.[5] Brown’s gas is only effective in decontaminating homogeneous solid state materials (such as metals), and most nuclear waste presents as slag or in liquid form. Because the isolation process can be the most expensive step, the use of Brown’s gas needs to be considered in conjunction with other low energy transmutation technologies.

Of the nine, the most promising (in terms of peer reviewed research) are

AmoTerra : Confined explosions using proprietary mixtures reduce radioactivity to near-background levels gradually over 1 to 4 days. This technique has been confirmed by the Italian ENEA and supported by the French CEA scientists as a serious candidate for treatment of waste stockpiles. The Canadian technology was granted an “Approval” (license) from the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia to show that this process can be used to deplete low-level radioactive waste on a commercial scale. Based on original research by Dr John O’Malley Bockris at Texas A&M, the process has been independently monitored since 2002 by a number of distinguished scientists, including (among others) the late Dr. John Coleman, Senior Research Scientist, MIT, retired Dr. Philippe Duport, as Director, Low-Dose Radiation, University of Ottawa and retired Dr. John Johnson, PhD, formerly Senior Scientist, Hanford. Using their proprietary laser technique, AmoTerra can treat radioactive hard surface materials clean of contamination in about three minutes. In 2016, they signed an agreement with the Hungarian government to install an integrated waste management program to include mixed and radioactive waste.LENTEC (Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Electrolytic Cells): induces a variety of transmutation reactions using various electrolysis cells designed to produce condensed charge clusters, which with special electrodes can penetrate the nuclei of larger atoms in solution and transmute these atoms into stable elements . The reported conversion of thorium to stable titanium and copper by the Cincinnati Group and by the Salt Lake City group is one of the most dramatic examples of this type of treatment process. Kevran Reactions : (Bionuclear Waste Remediation) The very compelling evidence compiled by French Nobel candidate Dr. Louis Kevran has identified a wide range of nuclear transmutations in biological systems. Highly radiation resistant microorganisms have been found thriving in the core of nuclear reactors, suggesting some inherent ability to transmute bio- active nuclear wastes. Higher Group Symmetry Electrodynamics : Extremely weak, non-classical, higher group symmetry electromagnetic fields were found during a 1991 experiment by PACE team member Glen Rein to significantly alter the radioactivity level of contaminated environments. The technology is extremely simple and could be applied with minimum logistics for treating massive outdoor areas in-toto, for example the region surrounding the Chernobyl disaster.

Nuclear Waste Disposal: Storage Isn’t the Answer

The issue of nuclear waste disposal poses a serious dilemma for all countries involved in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy production – as well as Pacific Rim countries threatened by Japan’s imminent plans to dump radioactive Fukushima cooling water into the Pacific Ocean.

In the US, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants (mainly consisting of spent fuel rods) is stored in dry cask vaults at a growing number of nuclear power plant sites, and at an interim facility located at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls.

Nuclear waste from former US nuclear weapons facilities is more problematic. According to Chemical and Engineering News, more than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in storage near current and former weapons production facilities. The waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent disposal in future (presently non-operational) underground vaults. With nowhere to go, the hazardous materials and their containers are beginning to leak as they age.

In the case of Hanford nuclear reservation in Eastern Washington, about a third of the buried containers of liquid radioactive waste are leaking hexavalent chromium and strontium-90 into local groundwater, which, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency, is flowing freely into the Columbia River. The latter is a major water source for crop irrigation, as well as a recreational fishing site.

The Chemical and Engineering News also reports the Hanford site is gearing up to vitrify its waste in a multi billion-dollar Department of Energy (DOE) vitrification facility. Under construction since 2002, the DOE promises “some” vitrification operations will begin this year. Given the operation’s past history of delays and cost overruns, this looks doubtful.

The plan at Hanford, for example, calls for entombing nuclear waste in borosilicate glass and encasing the glass in stainless-steel canisters. Yet despite the billions of dollars spent on Hanford’s vitrification plant, the exact formulation of the glass, or glasses, is still under investigation. Important questions remain unanswered (eg what glass compositions lead to the highest uptake of nuclear waste, how suited are they to vitrification, and how long will they resist corrosion in a repository environment?)

The Choice to Store Nuclear Waste is Political

The body of peer reviewed research justifying storage (which hasn’t actually happened yet) as the technology of choice for nuclear waste management is even more limited than that supporting transmutation technologies. In other words, the choice to “store” nuclear waste, rather than “decontaminate” it, is political rather than scientific.

Although much more research is needed before Brown’s gas and similar transmutation technologies could be effectively implemented, the political nature of the decision to “store” nuclear waste has made it extremely difficult to elicit research funding for novel decontamination technologies from either the nuclear lobby or government regulatory agencies.

Despite its label as a “fringe” technology, the evidence suggests the real objection to Brown’s gas is that it’s a non-Western technology, with America’s major economic competitor (and recent political enemy) owning most of the intellectual property related to its applications.

In any case, the refusal of Western governments to acknowledge the numerous peer reviewed technologies available for cheap and efficient nuclear waste decontamination is a major tragedy for civilian populations facing the ever growing risk of life threatening exposure to mismanaged nuclear waste.

Notes

[1] Extraordinary Healing Power of Brown’s Gas, Nexus Magazine, Nov 2017.

2] Michrowski, Andrew, Water as a Fuel – Brown’s Gas, Proceedings International Hydrogen Energy Congress and Exhibition, Istanbul 13-15 July 2005.

[3] Baotou Nuclear Institute #202, The results of experiments to dispose of radiation materials by Brown’s Gas.

Local Residents Alarmed as 386-Acre Shell Petrochemical Plant Spews ‘Illegal Pollution’

A ground flare caused by a malfunction at the Shell plant on Sept. 6, 2022, before the plant officially came online. Photo credit: Mark Dixon/Blue Lens

By Dana Drugmand

The New Lede

A Shell petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania — less than 30 miles from the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment — has submitted at least seven malfunction reports to state regulators and received three notices of violation in its first 100 days of operation.

On the afternoon of Feb. 13, just 10 days after a Norfolk Southern train transporting hazardous chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, a Shell petrochemical plant located less than 30 miles away in Pennsylvania began spewing black smoke into the air — an event that lasted several hours and sparked questions and concerns in the community.

The fiery orange flare that raised alarm among local residents and watchdog groups was one of multiple such events that have occurred at the facility since it became fully operational in November, underscoring doubts about the plant’s safety and compliance with air quality rules.

About an hour after the Feb. 13 flaring started, Shell posted an update on Facebook explaining that such flares come in response to equipment malfunctions, adding that flaring was “expected to continue through the evening as equipment is returned back to normal operation.”

Shell has yet to submit an official malfunction report for the February incident, which appears to be a violation of legal prohibitions on visible emissions from the plant’s flares and incinerators.

“Shell’s illegal pollution, continued flaring events, and atrocious disregard for environmental regulations in just its first 100 days of operations pose an unacceptable risk to workers and communities living near the petrochemical complex,” Anais Peterson, petrochemical campaigner at the community advocacy group Earthworks, said in a statement.

The plastics industry is costing society around $100 billion annually in environmental clean-ups, ecosystem degradation, shorter life expectancy and medical treatments.https://t.co/mXALpWSvGQ

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) February 23, 2023

Repeated violations

Shell’s 386-acre facility, located on the banks of the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania near the town of Monaca, is the largest plastics production plant in the Northeast and Shell’s largest petrochemical facility outside of the Gulf Coast.

The plant uses a process called “cracking” to convert the natural gas liquid ethane into the petrochemical ethylene, a building block for fossil fuel-derived plastic production.

Since announcing the commencement of operations in November, the Shell Polymers Monaca facility has experienced repeated malfunctions and emergency flaring episodes and has continually violated the conditions of its state-issued air permit.

In its first 100 days the plant has submitted at least seven malfunction reports to state regulators and has received three notices of violation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

As a result of the multiple malfunctions and flaring events, the plant is emitting excess carbon pollution and other pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Exposure to VOCs and NOx can cause difficulty breathing and nausea, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat and other health problems. The two pollutants can react in the presence of sunlight to create ground-level ozone, the main component of smog.

On the day the facility opened there was a malfunction resulting in estimated excess emissions that included 721 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and approximately 2 tons of VOCs, according to the company’s malfunction report submitted a month later.

Even before the plant came online, it reported numerous malfunctions and experienced elevated emissions. On Dec. 14, 2022, the Pennsylvania DEP issued Shell a Notice of Violation for excess VOC emissions.

As the notice indicated, the facility’s reported VOC emissions for the 12-month period ending in October 2022 totaled 662.9 tons, which exceeds the 516.2-ton limit conditioned in Shell’s permit.

VOC emissions were even higher for the 12-month period ending in November 2022 (716.6 tons) and the 12-month period ending in December 2022 (741.5 tons), while total NOx emissions reached 345.4 tons through December, exceeding the permit’s NOx emissions limit of 328.5 tons.

Shell received another Notice of Violation for these illegal emissions on Feb. 13 — the same day of the major flaring incident.

A ‘tolerable’ neighbor

Citing the plant’s documented air permit violations, environmental groups Clean Air Council and the Environmental Integrity Project, along with the watchdog campaign Eyes on Shell, wrote to the Pennsylvania DEP on Feb. 17 urging the agency to put a temporary halt on the plant’s operations.

“This is an opportunity for the Pennsylvania [DEP] to use their ability to hold Shell accountable for the illegal pollution that is harming the community and temporarily halt operations so they can come under compliance,” Andie Grey of the watchdog group Eyes on Shell said during a Feb. 23 webinar marking the plant’s 100th day of operations.

“DEP must act quickly to stop Shell’s ongoing violations of pollution limits that are meant to protect public health” Sarah Kula, attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a press release. “Since the plant has come online, Shell has struggled to meet its permit limits, and DEP needs to order a pause to operations until Shell can comply with the law.”

The Pennsylvania DEP did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking comment on the letter or its request.

The Environmental Integrity Project and Clean Air Council have issued notices of intent to take legal action against Shell for violations of its air permit. Community groups are also demanding that Shell hold another community meeting where it can respond to residents’ questions and concerns. The company last hosted a community meeting on Aug. 31, 2022.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ground-flare-shell-petrochemical-plant-pennsylvania/

COVID Pandemic Oversight Committee: ‘Worst Public Health Mistakes in History’

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on Tuesday presented the testimony of four public health experts, including Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., who described the government’s response as the “worst public health mistakes in history.”

 Convening for the first time on Tuesday, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic presented the testimony of four public health experts, as part of a roundtable: “Preparing For the Future By Learning From the Past: Examining COVID Policy Decisions.”

The agenda for the subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), focused on government policy pertaining to COVID-19, including vaccine mandates and other public health guidance.

In his opening remarks, Wenstrup said the subcommittee will examine the origins of COVID-19, policies surrounding gain-of-function, research, the impacts of lockdowns and other government policies, including school closures, and “vaccine and therapeutic development and the subsequent mandates.”

[…]

The experts who testified included Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at Stanford University; Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H., chief of islet transplant surgery and professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University; and Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., M.A.C.P., executive director of the American Public Health Association.

‘Worst public health mistakes in history’

[…]

Wenstrup cited examples like the vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden administration, ignoring natural immunity, the harm caused to elders forced into nursing homes, and the consequences of stopping in-person learning and implementing remote work, particularly in the public sector.

[…]

Most of the witnesses shared critical words about the overall public health response to COVID-19, which Kulldorff described as “the worst public health mistakes in history.”

Makary said “public health officials have made many tragic mistakes during the pandemic,” including:

“Ignoring natural immunity, dismissing the lab leak as a conspiracy, closing schools, masking toddlers … pushing boosters for young people, bypassing FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] expert panel customary votes that we’ve been using for decades, telling people to wash their hands like crazy.”

Bhattacharya said:

“The American people deserve answers to fundamental questions about the pandemic. On what empirical basis were schools closed? Did public health decision-makers consider the harms of their policies as thoroughly as their putative benefits? Why did authorities ignore recovered immunity or failure of the vaccine to prevent disease transmission?”

“Scientists and people vehemently disagreed about the wisdom of lockdowns, school closures, vaccine mandates and discrimination and so much else,” he added. “There’s near-universal agreement that what we did failed.”

[…]

Nursing home policies, hospital visitation restrictions ‘a human rights violation’

Kulldorff said one of the two “major failures” of the public health response was “the failure to properly and optimally protect older Americans,” including “nursing home residents.” He described “sending sick people to nursing homes” as “criminal.”

[…]

Kulldorff, who along with Bhattacharya helped draft the “Great Barrington Declaration” on “the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies,” said that when the group “proposed very concrete things for how to better protect older Americans” they were “slandered.”

[…]

uman rights violation.”

‘A house of cards that’s now falling apart’

Several of Tuesday’s witnesses focused on pandemic lockdown policies.

According to Bhattacharya, “By early 2022, about 95% of Americans had contracted COVID, despite the harsh countermeasures in most states.”

Bhattacharya described the policies as a “widespread violation of civil liberties.” He referenced a “Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis [finding] that lockdowns had failed to contain the spread of COVID.”

“At best, [lockdowns] temporarily protected the ‘laptop class’ who could work from home without losing their jobs, perhaps 30% of the population, while being served by the working class,” he added.

[…]

Mandates ‘ignored clear scientific data’

Bhattacharya questioned why “public health authorities ignore[d] clear scientific data that COVID infection [and] acquired immunity is as strong or stronger than vaccine-acquired immunity.”

“Vaccine mandates forced many frontline workers … to choose between their careers and a vaccine that provides less protection than the natural immunity they already had,” he said.

According to Makary, “Young healthy people were essentially spared from this pandemic,” with “an infection fatality rate no worse than influenza.” However, he said, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) denied knowledge of studies confirming these findings.

[…]

Makary took a different view, saying, “The greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic has been the United States government” when it claimed “vaccinated immunity was far greater than natural immunity” and that “masks were effective.”

Makary referred to the recently published Cochrane meta-analysis showing that masks did not prevent the spread of COVID-19 while pointing out that myocarditis is “four to 28 times more common after the vaccine” but that the government has said “young people benefit from a booster.”

[…]

“Many faced with these anti-scientific choices will never trust public health authorities again,” Bhattacharya said. “Public health bureaucrats operated more like dictators than scientists during the pandemic, sealing themselves off from credible outside criticism.”

[…]

“CDC and the FDA and people at the NIH [National Institutes of Health] made up their mind before the trials were completed,” said Makary. “They decided babies were going to get vaccines before the study was done. And then [they] found no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the two groups and they just authorized it anyway.”

[…]

Where do scientists whose careers were destroyed go to get their reputations back?

[…]

Kulldorff referred to the Great Barrington Declaration, saying that when it was presented, he and its authors were “slandered instead of taking it seriously,” while Bhattacharya said there was “a media campaign to take down our proposal, which tens of thousands of doctors, epidemiologists and scientists endorsed.”

“Where do the scientists whose careers were destroyed … go to get their reputations back?” he asked.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/house-oversight-select-subcommittee-coronavirus-pandemic/

 

CDC and NIH Can’t Provide Single Study to Support Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants Despite Widespread Use in Childhood Vaccines

CDC and NIH’s responses to ICAN’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding aluminum adjuvant reveal a stunning admission: they do not have a single study to support the safety of recommending repeated injection of this cyto- and-neuro toxic substance as part of the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule.

Aluminum adjuvants are literally toxic to the human body, causing cellular and nerve death. That is why they are often used in vaccines to elicit a strong immune response, which they do by causing carnage to the cells they come into contact with at the injection site and by binding to the antigens in the vaccine to make them appear dangerous to the body. Aluminum adjuvants also cause immune dysregulation, which is why they are used in labs to induce autoimmunity in mice.

Given the dangers of this substance, ICAN wanted to know what our “health” agencies relied upon to claim they are safe.

That journey began on February 19, 2019 when ICAN’s attorneys submitted a FOIA request asking the CDC to produce evidence of the safety of aluminum in infant and childhood vaccines. Given the CDC’s “safe and effective” mantra, one would think that the CDC would have stacks of studies readily available to support the safe use of aluminum adjuvants, a primary ingredient in many vaccines. That proved not to be the case.

In March 2019, the CDC denied the request, complaining that the FOIA request was too broad.  ICAN pushed back and, ultimately the CDC admitted that it had no documents showing the safety of aluminum in childhood vaccines!

In May 2019, ICAN appealed that response, challenging the adequacy of the CDC’s search of its records. Incredibly, it took HHS (CDC’s parent agency) another nearly three and a half years to come up with its final response on September 27, 2022, stating, yet again that it could not locate a single study.

To be thorough, ICAN’s attorneys also sent the same request to the NIH, which responded the same way, conceding that no records were found.

This is yet another example of the failure of our health agencies to look out for the best interests of our children and the inability of these agencies to justify their own claims and policies. Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines are required for entry to school, yet no data exists supporting their ingredient’s safety. But don’t worry, they are so safe they even removed liability for pharma companies for injuries!

[…]

Via https://icandecide.org/press-release/cdc-and-nih-unable-to-provide-a-single-study-to-support-the-safety-of-injecting-aluminum-adjuvants-despite-its-widespread-use-in-childhood-vaccines/

UK greenhouses shut down due to high energy costs

Empty shelves at Waitrose, Putney Exchange Shopping Centre, London, UK. Photo credit: John Cameron

Free West Media

In Great Britain, a particularly depressing facet of the crisis is now showing its first contours – and thus anticipating what is likely to happen in other European countries in the near future: because of the exploding energy prices, agriculture is being strangled and fresh produce has to be rationed.

High energy prices in the UK have meant that many farmers have made limited use of greenhouses to plant winter crops. According to a BBC report, this is leading to the first supermarkets to ration various types of vegetables. Field crops such as tomatoes, peppers, lamb’s lettuce, cauliflower or cucumbers are sometimes only sold in limited quantities.

Meanwhile, wholesalers are looking for new suppliers from other countries – but this means that the harvests have to travel much longer distances to Europe, which is not in the interest of the environment.

So far, farmers are not among those who benefit particularly from public support. This is now beginning to have an impact on consumers. Inexpensive food that is available all year round will soon be a thing of the past in Europe.

Rabat markets ‘well supplied with basic products’

British consumers are told that the impact that high electricity prices are having on produce grown in greenhouses in the UK, is due to “climate change”. The UK government has therefore blamed “bad weather” in Morocco.

The situation is quite different however: From the beginning of 2023 to February 22, 64,034 places of production, storage and wholesale and retail sales were inspected, said Moroccan government spokesman, Mustapha Baitas.

During these interventions, 3,325 offences were recorded in terms of pricing and quality, Baitas said in a press briefing after the meeting of the Government Council, in response to a question on the results of control operations and the situation of seized products.

The joint commissions seized and destroyed 400 tons of products “not conforming to the standards in force”, while all usable products were sold at public auction, he added.

The minister had stressed earlier that the markets “are well supplied with basic products”.

UK to introduce GM foods

In the UK, the Lea Valley Growers Association (LVGA) produces around 75 percent of the country’s crops. They now say that half of the greenhouses are empty and production is expected to go down by up to 60 percent.

The Bank of England director, Andrew Bailey, apologized in June last year for sounding “apocalyptic” about rising food prices.

Such dire warnings have led to support for the introduction of a Bill that paves the way for genetically modified (GM) crops, with new food laws expected to pass through the UK’s Parliament.

Not a UK problem only

“Many greenhouse producers are abandoning their businesses due to the inability to cover their current heating and labor costs. So far, the state has taken absolutely no measures to support the greenhouse production sector. As we all know, it is one of the most expensive industries in the agricultural sector and is directly related to gas and electricity prices,” according to the Bulgarian Association of Greenhouse Farmers.

The profitability of Dutch companies have also been impacted, because energy represents 20 to 30 percent of their costs, Reuters reported.

A study conducted by ABN Amro predicted that rising energy prices would cost Dutch companies around 22 billion euros this year as gas and electricity prices jumped almost 5 times their 2019 levels.

Among the most impacted sectors: greenhouse production whose annual turnover reaches around 8 billion euros but where energy represents 20 to 30 percent of the costs. Already 40 percent of the members of the Glastuinbouw Nederland group are operating at a loss, due to excessive energy costs.

[…]

Via https://freewestmedia.com/2023/02/28/uk-greenhouses-shut-down-due-to-high-energy-costs/

The Plan to Wreck America

S

Mike WhitneyUnz Review

In America, we have an oligarch problem, and it’s much bigger than the oligarch problem that Putin faced when he became president in 2000. The entire West is now in the grips of billionaire elites who have a stranglehold on the media, the political establishment and all of our important institutions. In recent years we have seen these oligarchs expand their influence from markets, finance and trade to politics, social issues and even public health. The impact this group has had on these other areas of interest, has been nothing short of breathtaking. Establishment elites and their media not only stood foursquare behind Russiagate, the Trump impeachment, the BLM riots and the January 6 fiasco, they also had a hand in the Covid hysteria and the host of repressive measures that were imposed in the name of public health. What we’d like to know is to what extent this group is actively involved in the shaping of other events that are aimed at transforming the American Republic into a more authoritarian system?

In other words, are the mandated injections, the forced lockdowns, the aggressive government-implemented censorship, the dubious presidential elections, the burning of food processing plants, the derailing of trains, the attacks on the power grid, the BLM-Antifa riots, the drag queen shows for schoolchildren, the maniacal focus on gender issues, and glitzy public show-trials merely random incidents occurring spontaneously during a period of great social change or are they, in fact, evidence of a stealthily orchestrated operation conducted by agents of the state acting on behalf of their elite benefactors? We already know that the FBI, the DOJ and the intel agencies were directly involved in Russiagate –which was a covert attack on the sitting president of the United States. So, the question is not “whether” these agencies are actively involved in other acts of treachery but, rather, to what extent these acts impact the lives or ordinary Americans, our politics and the country?

[…]

Everyone knows there was no “insurrection” nor were there any “white supremacists”. The protestors were locked up because they’re nationalists (patriots) which are the natural enemy of the globalists.

[…]

The other underlying message of January 6, is that ordinary people are no longer allowed to challenge the authority of the people in power. Again, political legitimacy in the US has always been determined by elections. What January 6 indicates, is that legitimacy no longer matters. What matters is power, and the person who can have you arrested for questioning his authority, has all the power he needs.Initiative.

[…]

On any number of topics from ESG, to digital currencies, to vaccine passports, to AI, to gain-of-function research, to 15-minute cities, to transhumanism, to war with Russia; the decisions are all being made by a handful of people of whom we know every little and who were never voted into office.

And that brings us back to our original question: How many of these oddball events (in recent years) were conjured up and implemented by agents of the deep state to advance the elitist agenda?

This seem like an impossible question since it’s hard to find a link between these dramatically divers events. For example, what is the link between a Drag Queen Children’s Hour and, let’s say, firebombing a food processing plant in Oklahoma? Or the relentless political exploitation of gender issues and the January 6 public show trials? If there was a connection, we’d see it, right?

Not necessarily, because the link might not have anything to do with the incident itself, but instead, with its impact on the people who experience it. In other words, all of these events could be aimed at generating fear, uncertainty, anxiety, alienation and even terror. Have the intelligence agencies launched such destabilizing operations before?

Indeed, they have, many times. Here’s an excerpt from an article that will help you to see where I’m going with this. It’s from a piece at The Saker titled Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret War for International Fascism.” the democratic state under the cover of Communist and pro-Soviet activities…Moreover, we have people who have infiltrated these groups.”about such a state of instability thus allowing for a completely new system, a global authoritarian order. Yves Guerin-Serac, who was an open fascist, would not be the first to use false-flag tactics that were blamed on communists and used to justify more stringent police and military control from the state….” (“Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret War for International Facism”, The Saker)

[…]

In other words, the objective of the operation is to completely disrupt all social relations and interaction, cultivate feelings of uncertainty, polarization and terror, find a group that can be scapegoated for the wide societal collapse, and, then, present yourself (elites) as the best choice for restoring order.

Is this what’s going on?

It’s very possible. It could all be part of a Grand Strategy aimed at “wiping the slate clean” in order to “transition away from intergovernmental decision-making” to a system of “multi-stakeholder governance.”

That could explain why there has been such a vicious and sustained attack on our history, culture, traditions, religious beliefs, monuments, heroes, and founders. They want to replace our idealism with feelings of shame, humiliation and guilt. They want to erase our past, our collective values, our heritage, our commitment to personal freedom, and the very idea of America itself. They want to raze everything to the ground and start over. That is their basic Gameplan writ large.

The destruction of the state is being carried out behind the cover of seemingly random events that are spreading chaos, exacerbating political divisions, increasing the incidents of public mayhem, and clearing the way for a violent restructuring of the government.

They can’t build a new world order until the old one is destroyed.

[…]

Via https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-plan-to-wreck-america/

WSJ: Time for Health Officials to ‘Concede Opponents Were Right’ — Natural Immunity Protects Against COVID

 

By  Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

A Wall Street Journal editorial board member Sunday called out the press and public health officials — who are now affirming “natural immunity” protects against COVID-19 — for spending three years disparaging natural immunity despite overwhelming evidence supporting it.

A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board member Sunday called out the press and public health officials — who are now affirming “natural immunity” protects against COVID-19 — for spending three years disparaging natural immunity despite overwhelming evidence supporting it.

In her WSJ opinion piece — “Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity?” — Allysia Finley wrote:

“The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.”

Finley began her op-ed with a quote from a Feb. 16 NBC article describing the Lancet findings:

“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds.”

The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, and 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. Those results mean that natural immunity provides protection equal to or better than two or three doses of the mRNA vaccines, as The Defender reported.

The Lancet is finally acknowledging what doctors and scientists have been gaslit for saying for years — that natural immunity provides superior protection to experimental vaccines. Only the tsunami of propaganda and censorship from the pharma/government https://t.co/RKKlDN1gQY… https://t.co/AvQ1O0srrx

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) February 17, 2023

The idea that prior COVID-19 infection would protect against future illness was “deeply rooted in immunology before studies bore it out,” Finley explained. Repeat exposure to respiratory viruses trains our immune systems to live with and fight off viruses as they become endemic.

“The concept of natural immunity isn’t scientifically controversial, yet it was disparaged by public-health officials who associated it with opposition to lockdowns and the Great Barrington Declaration in autumn 2020,” she wrote.

The “Great Barrington Declaration” proposed to protect vulnerable people while allowing those at low risk from COVID-19 to “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection,” with the goal of minimizing deaths and social harms until herd immunity was reached.

She added that although herd immunity became elusive because the virus mutated, the central premise of the declaration was correct, “As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all — including the vulnerable — falls.”

The “public-health clerisy” feared that if people understood natural immunity, it would encourage them to get infected intentionally or discourage them from getting vaccinated, she wrote. But, there was no evidence for the first assertion, and the second one was “no reason to deny scientific reality.”

So instead of acknowledging reality, this “clerisy” mandated vaccines even for people who had been previously infected and tech companies censored discussion of natural immunity online, which fueled suspicion by vaccine skeptics.

Now could be the time to make it right. Finley concluded:

“The Lancet study could serve a useful political purpose by giving public-health officials cover to relax vaccine mandates, which in turn could reduce resistance to vaccines. But this would require the clerisy to concede its opponents were right.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wsj-covid-natural-immunity/

10 myths told by COVID experts — and now debunked

Marty Mackary

New York Post

In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about public health officials during COVID:

Much of the time, they were wrong.

To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for making recommendations based on what was known at the time.

That’s understandable. You go with the data you have.

No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives in the face of new evidence.

When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed it and censored opposing opinions.

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal, MMWR.

In the final analysis, public health officials actively propagated misinformation that ruined lives and forever damaged public trust in the medical profession.

Here are 10 ways they misled Americans:

Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccinated immunity

A Lancet study looked at 65 major studies in 19 countries on natural immunity. The researchers concluded that natural immunity was at least as effective as the primary COVID vaccine series.

In fact, the scientific data was there all along — from 160 studies, despite the findings of these studies violating Facebook’s “misinformation” policy.

Since the Athenian plague of 430 BC, it has been observed that those who recovered after infection were protected against severe disease if reinfected.

That was also the observation of nearly every practicing physician during the first 18 months of the COVID pandemic.

Most Americans who were fired for not having the COVID vaccine already had antibodies that effectively neutralized the virus, but they were antibodies that the government did not recognize.

Misinformation #2: Masks prevent COVID transmission

Cochran Reviews are considered the most authoritative and independent assessment of the evidence in medicine.

And one published last month by a highly respected Oxford research team found that masks had no significant impact on COVID transmission.

When asked about this definitive review, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky downplayed it, arguing that it was flawed because it focused on randomized controlled studies.

But that was the greatest strength of the review! Randomized studies are considered the gold standard of medical evidence.

If all the energy used by public health officials to mask toddlers could have been channeled to reduce child obesity by encouraging outdoor activities, we would be better off.

Misinformation #3: School closures reduce COVID transmission

The CDC ignored the European experience of keeping schools open, most without mask mandates.

Transmission rates were no different, evidenced by studies conducted in Spain and Sweden.

Misinformation #4: Myocarditis from the vaccine is less common than from the infection

Public health officials downplayed concerns about vaccine-induced myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle.

They cited poorly designed studies that under-captured complication rates.

A flurry of well-designed studies said the opposite.

We now know that myocarditis is six to 28 times more common after the COVID vaccine than after the infection among 16- to 24-year-old males.

Tens of thousands of children likely got myocarditis, mostly subclinical, from a COVID vaccine they did not need because they were entirely healthy or because they already had COVID.

Misinformation #5: Young people benefit from a vaccine booster

Boosters reduced hospitalizations in older, high-risk Americans.

But the evidence was never there that they lower COVID mortality in young, healthy people.

That’s probably why the CDC chose not to publish its data on hospitalization rates among boosted Americans under 50, when it published the same rates for those over 50.

Ultimately, White House pressure to recommend boosters for all was so intense that the FDA’s two top vaccine experts left the agency in protest, writing scathing articles on how the data did not support boosters for young people.

Misinformation #6: Vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates

President Biden and other officials demanded that unvaccinated workers, regardless of their risk or natural immunity, be fired.

They demanded that soldiers be dishonorably discharged and nurses be laid off in the middle of a staffing crisis.

The mandate was based on the theory that vaccination reduced transmission rates — a notion later proven to be false.

But after the broad recognition that vaccination does not reduce transmission, the mandates persisted, and still do to this day.

A recent study from George Mason University details how vaccine mandates in nine major US cities had no impact on vaccination rates.

They also had no impact on COVID transmission rates.

Misinformation #7: COVID originating from the Wuhan lab is a conspiracy theory

Google admitted to suppressing searches of “lab leak” during the pandemic.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, claimed (and still does) he didn’t believe the virus came from a lab.

Ultimately, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to a lab leak origin — the same origin suggested to Dr. Anthony Fauci by two very prominent virologists in a January 2020 meeting he assembled at the beginning of the pandemic.

According to documents obtained by Bret Baier of Fox News, they told Fauci and Collins that the virus may have been manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly changed their tune in public comments days after meeting with the NIH officials.

The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from Fauci’s agency.

Misinformation #8: It was important to get the second vaccine dose three or four weeks after the first dose

Data were clear in the spring of 2021, just months after the vaccine rollout, that spacing the vaccine out by three months reduces complication rates and increases immunity.

Spacing out vaccines would have also saved more lives when Americans were rationing a limited vaccine supply at the height of the epidemic.

Misinformation #9: Data on the bivalent vaccine is ‘crystal clear’

Dr. Ashish Jha famously said this, despite the bivalent vaccine being approved using data from eight mice.

To date, there has never been a randomized controlled trial of the bivalent vaccine.

In my opinion, the data are crystal clear that young people should not get the bivalent vaccine.

It would have also spared many children myocarditis.

Misinformation #10: One in five people get long COVID

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that 20% of COVID infections can result in long COVID.

But a UK study found that only 3% of COVID patients had residual symptoms lasting 12 weeks. What explains the disparity?

It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weakness for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well.

Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of ordinary life.

What’s most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong.

Public health officials said “you must” when the correct answer should have been “we’re not sure.”

Early on, in the absence of good data, public health officials chose a path of stern paternalism.

Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies showing that they were wrong.

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts-now-debunked/