Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 463
January 31, 2023
Musings on the militarization of Covid
El Gato Malo
a lot of very strange things seem to have happened in the west around covid and covid response.
not only did we take every piece of evidence-based epidemic guideline that had stood in place for 100 years and toss it out the window, but we then immediately adopted its diametric opposite as “proven policy” and recklessly imposed it in draconian fashion as though his was somehow “the science
.”
public panic was pursued as pandemic policy and response rammed down throats as trumped up moral imperative backed by increasingly overt threats and mandates.
dissidents were vilified and silenced. disagreement was disparaged and drowned under demagoguery.
the party line was as relentless and uncriticizable as it was lacking in foundation.
it felt like we were under attack.
it was not so much public health as war and as the fog clears we can increasingly see why: because this was done by soldiers.
this trend was astonishingly endemic. a few examples:
(translated from dutch via google)
don’t even get me started on china or the australian reversion to prison colony.
i suspect you’d be hard pressed to find a country in the west where this was not so and where not only were militaries and military grade infowar and propaganda techniques used against an unsuspecting citizenry, but where they are not, as is so clearly the case in the US, seeking to keep doing it.
this does not instill confidence.
but how did all this happen?the US response was largely dictated early on by deborah birx, a woman who came from a military and walter reed background and had almost no direct experience in this sort of pandemic.
she did not come to the white house through a health agency but rather under the auspices of matt pottinger, the national security advisor. it seems she was feeding his wife yen non-public info from china and he then put her forward to run white house response.
this is, on it’s face, a really weird choice and situation.
why would the security/military apparatus step forward at such a time?and why, the minute that they did, did folks like fauci and redfield turn on a dime and start advocating the exact opposite of that which they had been (which had previously been in accord with longstanding practice)?why suddenly adopt 27 kinds of deeply restrictive pseudoscience from a fountain of fake data like birx? and why, all over the world, was this a military/security state issue and not a health agency one?it sure is an interesting question.
i don’t think there has ever been a disease response like it in the developed world.
a divergence of this sort and magnitude would seem to require a potent causative agent to induce it.
so let’s put on our prognosticating hats and give it a bit of a think.
obviously, what’s about to follow is speculative. i claim no special knowledge here, just a tendency to see the shapes that underlie pixelated mosaics.
but it sure seems to like like the most parsimonious explanation here is a simple one:
governments knew this was a gain of function lab escape and not a naturally evolved virus and feared what that might mean.
this put the controls and roadmap for handling it in the hands of the military and security agencies, not the health agencies who were grabbed and dragooned into compliance to assure their loyalty (and perhaps to hide their culpability as matters of “security.”
they did not know how the pandemic would play out but even more so feared the idea that the public would panic even more if it knew this was man made and feared a “bioweapon” (something i do not believe SARS-COV-2 is or was ever intended to be) because that story rather than “vaccine program” would be the first jump from “lab escape” in the public consciousness.
“national security” was invoked, blast shutters dropped, patriot act (or similar) powers evoked, and the kinds of people who plan invasions were put in charge of public safety for fear this might wind up seeming like some sort of war.
and so it became one in all but name.
[…]
Via https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/musings-on-the-militarization-of
Colorado should kick lawns to the curb
(Getty Images)Sammy HerdmanOver the course of the next seven years, an average 35,000 housing units will be built each year in Colorado. If past trends persist, around 70% of those housing units will be single-family homes. From Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, it’s likely that Coloradans will see more single-family suburban developments popping up — and with them, lawns.
Conventional grass lawns ornament the vast majority of American homes, covering three times as much surface area as irrigated cornfields in the United States. Although lawns are often purely aesthetic, sometimes they are chosen for their durability; lawns hold up against cleats, dogs and kids. Lawns used frequently for games and playtime are easy to justify, especially when they are public.
But there are far too many cropped, green lawns that are neglected until a weed sprouts up or it’s time to mow. Too many lawns exist just for the sake of being maintained.
Despite covering 2% of land in the U.S., most grasses can’t survive in the West’s arid climate without constant watering. In Denver, about half of the water used by the average single-family home is devoted to lawn care. Combined with the water sprinkled onto parks, medians and golf courses, a whopping 25% of Denver’s municipal water is devoted to lawns.
Considering that the Western U.S. is in the midst of the most severe drought in a millennium, allocating billions of gallons of fresh water to grass seems like an egregious misuse of resources. The drought is so dire that the Colorado River, which provides 40 million people across the Western U.S. with water, has shrunk by 20% over the past 20 years.
Lawn maintenance is also a threat to Colorado’s pollinators and public health. Americans use approximately 70 million pounds of pesticides to maintain lawns each year. Of the 30 most common lawn pesticides, more than half are probable or possible carcinogens, and many of them are linked with birth defects, neurotoxicity, kidney damage, liver damage and more.
Many of Colorado’s yards exhibit a custom justified primarily by tradition and peer pressure.
In Colorado cities and towns, such as Colorado Springs, the glyphosate-based herbicide known as Roundup is sprayed on lawns in public parks, despite being a possible carcinogen. Lawn pesticides and fertilizers commonly run off into lakes, streams and groundwater, wreaking havoc on aquatic ecosystems and polluting drinking water. Pollinators, which are on the decline globally and in Colorado, are harmed when lawn pesticides contain neonicotinoid chemicals. Insecticides aimed at lawn pests don’t spare bees and butterflies.
Lawn equipment also contributes to the climate crisis and the Front Range’s bad air quality. According to the EPA, in just one year, gas-powered lawn and garden equipment produced more than 20 million tons of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Even more emissions are created when lawn clippings are disposed of in landfills. In the Front Range, gas-powered lawn and garden equipment contribute as much as one-fifth of the region’s ozone pollution.
Landscaping alternatives better suited to Colorado do exist. Replacing lawns with drought-tolerant landscaping — termed xeriscaping by Denver Water — can reduce water usage by 30-80%. Replacing lawns with native plants can reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers. Growing native plants also patches together habitat for dwindling pollinator populations.
Colorado is a state defined by mountainous vistas, natural landscapes and abundant wildlife. Its residents are outdoor enthusiasts and free-thinkers, demonstrably not afraid to break the mold (consider the legalization of marijuana, the decriminalization of psychedelics). Yet many of Colorado’s yards exhibit a custom justified primarily by tradition and peer pressure.
Some cities, such as Aurora and Castle Rock, have passed ordinances to limit new lawns. However, statewide and in Denver, little to no progress has been made to incentivize xeriscaping.*
Lawns are antithetical to the climate and character of Colorado. Colorado’s leaders should implement educational programs about alternative landscaping and introduce greater financial incentives for home-owners and developers to replace lawns.
As our state enters another year of drought, climate chaos and habitat loss, hopefully Colorado will kick lawns to the curb.
* The process of landscaping, or gardening, that reduces or eliminates the need for irrigation.
The Engineering Secrets of Greek and Roman Catapults
Lecture 21: Machines at War – Evolution of the Catapult
Understanding Greek and Roman Technology: From the Catapult to the Pantheon
Dr Stephen Ressler (2013)
Film Review
According to Ressler the catapult provides an excellent case study of 700 years of engineering development. In 393 BC Dyonysius of Syracuse created the first military think tank to design and build weapons for his campaign against Carthage (see Military Technology in Ancient Greece and Rome ). The catapult grew out of a need to overcome limitations of the bow and arrow.
In engineering terms, a bow is a beam that operates by bending. Compression energy is created on convex side of the bow, while tension energy is created on the concave side. This stored elastic energy is released as kinetic energy (propelling the arrow).
According to Ressler, there are three ways to increase this kinetic energy
Increasing the length of the draw.Shortening the bow string to increase the bow tensionMaking the bow stiffer, requiring more energy to bend it (released when the string is released).In the 2nd millennium BC, steppes nomads learned how to make a stiffer, composite (enabling heavier arrows to travel further) bow by combining wood, animal horn and animal tendons.
Greek Catapults
The next improvement was the gastrophetes, created by ancient Greeks in 399 BC: It attached a wooden slider to the bow with an iron trigger mechanism. The bowsman cocked it by applying his full weight to the belly brace. Not only did it have a longer range, but it could penetrate armor.
As new versions of the gastrophetes became heavier and more difficult to cock, a windlass was added to make a primitive catapult and it was fitted on a base.The oxybetes, invented in 375 BC, was larger than the gastrophetes and could shoot both large iron tipped bolts and 50 pound rocks.
When the bow couldn’t be lengthened any further, it was replaced by two torsion springs, made of twisted bundles of animal tendon.
The ancient Greeks classified artillery pieces into two categories: arrow shooting euthytones and stone throwing palintones. A full size palintone could throw 200 pound rocks 400 years and 50 pound rocks 700 years.
euthytone
palintone
In his 275 BC De Architechtura, Vetruvius cites the scientific formula used to calculate the ideal diameter of the torsion springs:
D = 1.1 x ∛100 M
M equals the weight of the projectile (in minas) and D equals the diameter of the torsion springs (in dactyls).
Although the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t have a mathematical method of calculating cube roots, Eratosphenos inventing a process of determining their value by graphing them.*
Late model Greek catapults replaced the rope torsion springs with bronze leaf springs and pneumatic sliders.
The Scorpio increased the catapult’s power with forward moving arms.
Roman Catapults
The Hatra Ballista was a Roman siege catapult powered by torsion springs consisting of rope bundles made from animal sinew. This machine was particularly innovative, with the two wooden throwing arms rotated inward, rather than outward as with conventional catapults. The inward swing allowed for a greater angle of rotation, which increased the elastic energy stored in the springs.
During strife-ridden late empire, the Romans reverted to using the one armed onager, which was less complex and easier to build.
*See https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TheEratosthenesMachineForFindingTheCubeRootOfTwo/
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/146678/146720
January 30, 2023
We are “greening” ourselves to extinction
Vijay KolinjivadiAl Jazeera
More than a decade ago, investment experts James Altucher and Douglas Sease wrote a book for the Wall Street Journal called Investing in the Apocalypse. They argued that the end of the world is a profitable opportunity for those who know how to “fade the fear”, as everyone else panics. They maintained that when disaster strikes, investors should approach it with the rationale that “no matter how bad things seem, they really aren’t that bad”.
Well before the COVID-19 pandemic, they advised investing in big pharmaceutical companies as a strategy to reap dividends from global pandemics. They also encouraged putting money into renewable energy systems while ramping up oil production.
Today, it seems many have followed Althucher and Sease’s advice. Under the guise of taking action on the pandemic, billions of dollars have been poured into big pharma, instead of public health and policies aimed at preventing another global outbreak. The supposed energy transition that has been undertaken has seen renewable energy production expanded, but there has been no indication that oil and gas are being substituted and ultimately phased out.
What is worse, governments and corporations have teamed up to turn the apocalypse into a money-making opportunity. They have rushed to put forward false solutions to the climate crisis: from the push to replace fuel-engine vehicles with electric ones, to so-called climate-smart agriculture, to protected areas for nature conservation and massive tree planting projects for carbon offsets.
All this trickery is called “greening” and it is designed to profit off of climate fears, not stop climate change. While guaranteeing high returns, this deception is tantamount to the genocide of the hundreds of millions of people who will perish from the effects of climate change within the next century because things are that bad.
‘Firefighters with flamethrowers’That is how climate writer Keton Joshi describes the world’s biggest polluters proposing climate solutions. Indeed, what governments and corporations have pushed for in terms of climate action in the past few years are policies that only make the situation worse.
Take carbon offsets – the epitome of “greening”. Acting as real-life “Pass GO and Collect $200” tickets, they allow some of the biggest climate criminals to go on polluting by engaging in a charade of tree-planting schemes. The logic behind them is that we cannot stop our greenhouse gas emissions immediately because that would “hurt the economy”, so we can instead plant trees that will absorb them and grow the economy through carbon markets – a supposed win-win situation.
But this fallacy has been repeatedly exposed. For one, the organisations that are supposed to certify that indeed enough tree-planting has taken place do not have the tools to verify that the declared emissions will definitely be absorbed. Another problem is that many offsetting activities do not actually offset anything.
A recent investigation into the world’s largest carbon standard found that 94 percent of its rainforest offset credits did not actually contribute to carbon reduction. Worse still, it exaggerated the threat to forests included in its projects, while its conservation activities – which yielded some of these credits – involved serious human rights violations, including forced evictions and home demolitions of local people.
Even if some of these carbon offset schemes do make a difference in the short term through forest conservation or reforestation, given our current climate reality characterised by ever-worsening forest fires, they can easily just burn to dust and contribute to the greenhouse gas problem. One recent study, for example, found that since 2015, close to 7 million tonnes of carbon was released from wildfires in six forest projects that are part of California’s carbon trading system.
Then there is the fatal confusion between efficiency and ecology. We are being duped to believe that buying more “energy efficient” or “green” products can save the planet. Whether it is a new electric car, an “eco-friendly” condo, a paper straw instead of a plastic straw, or a solar-powered turtle-shaped mega yacht – all are branded as ecological solutions because they are supposedly more energy or materially efficient than the standard alternative.
What often hides behind these “green” labels is the large carbon footprint their production generates. Furthermore, “greened” technological solutions often just shift the environmental damage they do to another sector or a distant location.
For example, the growing electric vehicle industry may help reduce carbon emissions but it will also cause a massive jump in the demand for lithium and other minerals. Scientists are already warning about the grave environmental impact the rush for mining lithium may have, including water pollution and loss, toxic waste spills, biodiversity loss and soil contamination.
Apart from making climate change worse, these “solutions” also disproportionately harm marginalised groups and Indigenous peoples, as UN special rapporteur Tendayi Achiume has recently warned. Not only are the impacts of ecological collapse felt more severely by those who encounter racism on a daily basis, but the extraction of minerals needed for “smart” technologies and renewable energy exposes these same people to pollution, violence and displacement.
The argument that “green” solutions provide jobs also rests on weak foundations, especially if the quality of work is considered. As the ILO has pointed out, a large share of employment for the so-called “nature-based solutions” is informal, low-wage, temporary, and exposed to risks, such as unsafe working conditions, child labour and lack of social security.
‘The biggest land grab in history’Nature conservation has also fallen prey to the “greening” deception. For years now, large conservation organisations and their corporate sponsors have been pushing the idea that large swaths of land and forests need to be fenced off so we can protect biodiversity and help mitigate the effects of climate change.
Like the carbon offset schemes, this policy is just another way to enable big polluters to continue to pollute by saying: “We are doing something for the planet.” It also enables some – particularly in the tourism and construction sectors – to benefit from the so-called “nature” tourism in which the wealthy pay big money to access fenced-off parks and “experience” pristine nature while staying at luxury real estate projects.
And just like other “greening” strategies, this type of nature conservation results in major human injustices. Indigenous peoples from around the world have suffered evictions, dispossession and even killings as they have been forced from their lands to make way for nature conservation projects.
In the Republic of the Congo, the Indigenous Baka people have been brutally oppressed by the guards of a conservation project supported by the UNDP, WWF, the EU, the US and logging and palm oil companies. A UNDP investigation found that members of the community were routinely beaten, some imprisoned, tortured or raped.
In the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo, the guards of a national park funded by the US and German governments have also engaged in violent attacks on the Indigenous Batwa people living in its territory. A 2022 report by Minority Rights has produced evidence that at least 20 members of the community have been killed and at least 15 women raped during forced eviction campaigns.
There are countless horror stories like these ones; according to estimates, some 14 million people have been evicted in this manner in Africa alone. That is why the news that a new conservation scheme was approved at the UN conference on biodiversity (COP15) held in Montreal in December was met with much dismay by Indigenous people across the world.
The new Global Biodiversity Framework – also called the 30×30 target – aims to turn 30 percent of the planet into protected areas by 2030. In a letter to COP15 participants, Indigenous peoples stated that the policy “may be the biggest land grab in history and further threaten the physical and cultural survival of Indigenous people worldwide”.
[…]
Via https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/1/29/greening-ourselves-to-extinction
Sen. Ron Johnson Questions FAA Over COVID ‘Vaccine Adverse Events’ Among Pilots
(Photo by STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images) Daily Wire
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Friday asking if the agency would investigate reports from pilots who have claimed they had an adverse response to COVID vaccination.
Johnson, a strong opponent of vaccine mandates, asked in the letter for more information about recent medical testing decisions from the FAA and if it was aware of any adverse events related to COVID vaccination. The letter was sent to Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen and Federal Air Surgeon Susan Northrup.
“The vaccine injured deserve to be seen, heard & believed,” Johnson said on Twitter. “@FAANews – are you aware of the COVID-19 vaccine injuries in the aviation industry?”
The vaccine injured deserve to be seen, heard & believed.
@FAANews – are you aware of the COVID-19 vaccine injuries in the aviation industry?
My letter highlights five of these severe adverse events experienced by pilots & an air traffic controller.https://t.co/BBVaxjBTkA pic.twitter.com/NVOFQwqgPi
— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) January 28, 2023
The Wisconsin Republican’s letter covered a variety of topics related to the COVID vaccine, including a question about new parameters adopted by the FAA in October related to AV block. AV block occurs when the heart cannot pump blood effectively because the electrical signal controlling the heartbeat is blocked, or partially blocked, according to the Cleveland Clinic. This can cause dizziness, fainting, tiredness, and shortness of breath.
Some had speculated that the new parameters might be linked to COVID vaccination. According to Johnson, a representative from the FAA told him last week that “the change has nothing to do with Covid vaccinations.”
“New scientific evidence enabled the FAA to safely raise the tolerance used to screen for a certain heart condition. The update was an effort to save pilots the expense of an unnecessary cardiac evaluation that did not contribute to a fly or no-fly decision,” the FAA rep said.
Yet Johnson said in the letter that “questions still remain regarding the FAA’s decision to issue this change and its awareness of adverse events connected to the COVID-19 vaccines.”
Johnson’s letter also included a list of five pilots who he said had adverse events related to COVID vaccination. The reported reactions of the pilots included erratic heart rate, chest pain, and high blood pressure.
“It remains unclear what, if anything, the FAA has done as it relates to these individuals’ experiences or if it is actively monitoring COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in the aviation industry,” Johnson wrote.
The senator later asked the officials if they were aware of any pilots who had “COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects,” or were investigating any incidents of adverse effects.
The FAA announced on December 12, 2020 that it had “determined that pilots may receive the vaccine under the conditions of their FAA-issue airman medical certification.” Johnson asked for records on how this decision was made.
Johnson, who has been suspended from YouTube in the past for vaccine “misinformation,” wants a response to his inquiry by February 10.
[…]
Sen. Ron Johnson Questions FAA Over COVID ‘Vaccine Adverse Events’ Among Pilots
(Photo by STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images) Daily Wire
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Friday asking if the agency would investigate reports from pilots who have claimed they had an adverse response to COVID vaccination.
Johnson, a strong opponent of vaccine mandates, asked in the letter for more information about recent medical testing decisions from the FAA and if it was aware of any adverse events related to COVID vaccination. The letter was sent to Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen and Federal Air Surgeon Susan Northrup.
“The vaccine injured deserve to be seen, heard & believed,” Johnson said on Twitter. “@FAANews – are you aware of the COVID-19 vaccine injuries in the aviation industry?”
The vaccine injured deserve to be seen, heard & believed.
@FAANews – are you aware of the COVID-19 vaccine injuries in the aviation industry?
My letter highlights five of these severe adverse events experienced by pilots & an air traffic controller.https://t.co/BBVaxjBTkA pic.twitter.com/NVOFQwqgPi
— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) January 28, 2023
The Wisconsin Republican’s letter covered a variety of topics related to the COVID vaccine, including a question about new parameters adopted by the FAA in October related to AV block. AV block occurs when the heart cannot pump blood effectively because the electrical signal controlling the heartbeat is blocked, or partially blocked, according to the Cleveland Clinic. This can cause dizziness, fainting, tiredness, and shortness of breath.
Some had speculated that the new parameters might be linked to COVID vaccination. According to Johnson, a representative from the FAA told him last week that “the change has nothing to do with Covid vaccinations.”
“New scientific evidence enabled the FAA to safely raise the tolerance used to screen for a certain heart condition. The update was an effort to save pilots the expense of an unnecessary cardiac evaluation that did not contribute to a fly or no-fly decision,” the FAA rep said.
Yet Johnson said in the letter that “questions still remain regarding the FAA’s decision to issue this change and its awareness of adverse events connected to the COVID-19 vaccines.”
Johnson’s letter also included a list of five pilots who he said had adverse events related to COVID vaccination. The reported reactions of the pilots included erratic heart rate, chest pain, and high blood pressure.
“It remains unclear what, if anything, the FAA has done as it relates to these individuals’ experiences or if it is actively monitoring COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in the aviation industry,” Johnson wrote.
The senator later asked the officials if they were aware of any pilots who had “COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects,” or were investigating any incidents of adverse effects.
The FAA announced on December 12, 2020 that it had “determined that pilots may receive the vaccine under the conditions of their FAA-issue airman medical certification.” Johnson asked for records on how this decision was made.
Johnson, who has been suspended from YouTube in the past for vaccine “misinformation,” wants a response to his inquiry by February 10.
[…]
Newsweek: ‘Elite’ Scientists Caused Deaths by Misleading Public on Covid
In an op-ed published today in Newsweek, Kevin Bass, M.S., an M.D./Ph.D. student, blasted the elitism of the scientific community and called on it to take responsibility for the deadly consequences of misleading the public about COVID-19.
An op-ed in Newsweek today blasted the elitism of the scientific community and called on it to take responsibility for the deadly consequences of misleading the public about COVID-19.“I was wrong,” wrote Kevin Bass, M.S., a 7th-year M.D./Ph.D. student at a Texas medical school. “We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.”
Like many medical students and researchers, Bass said he initially believed the information put out by public health authorities. He advocated for lockdowns, vaccines and boosters.
But now it is clear the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public” about a wide range of topics — including but not limited to natural immunity, the need for school closures, the effectiveness of masks and vaccine safety and effectiveness, Bass said.
The biggest mistake of all, he argued, was made by a scientific community that fell in lockstep behind these institutions without concern for the needs of the broader public.
“We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data,” Bass wrote. “And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.”
This approach abandoned the principles of science and created an “us versus them” mindset in public health that fractured society and exacerbated existing health and economic disparities.
The “emotional response and ingrained partisanship” of the scientific community led it to minimize the downsides of systematically imposed interventions.
“We violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children” who were already marginalized in society, Bass said.
And not only did most scientists fail to support alternative scientific voices — like those of Dr. John Ioannidis, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Ph.D., Dr. Scott Atlas, Vinay Prasad M.D., MPH and Dr. Monica Gandhi, MPH — he said, they worked to disparage and suppress them.
By dismissing valid critiques by former President Trump as “buffoonery” and treating dissenters with similar scorn, the scientific community also alienated large segments of the public and opened space for “conspiracy theories” on social media, he added.
The government then used the presence of some uninformed analyses as justification to conspire with Big Tech to “aggressively suppress” so-called “misinformation” and erase opponents’ valid concerns.
The privileged elite who made these policies — members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech and public health — failed to understand that critics from outside of their social class could possibly hold a valid point of view, he said.
The outcome of their approach to policymaking is a “massive and ongoing loss of life” due to loss of faith in the healthcare system, spiking rates of mental illness, increased suicide and gun violence, a catastrophic loss of education disproportionately experienced by the poor, and a loss of trust in healthcare, scientific authorities and political leaders, he said.
“We crafted policy for the people without consulting them,” Bass wrote. “If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives,” he concluded.
Bass joins experts speaking out in mainstream media and beyond
Bass, a medical student with a master’s degree in immunology, keeps the institution where he studies private out of concern for his professional security.
In addition to his studies, he runs a website called The Diet Wars dedicated to exploring the effects of nutrition and treatments on health.
Bass first made his shifting position on COVID-19 policies public to his almost 60,000 Twitter followers last month:
I was wrong about lockdowns and mandates. I was wrong and the reason I was wrong was my tribalism, my emotions, and my distorted understanding of human nature and of the virus. It doesn’t matter much, but I wanted to apologize for being wrong.
— Kevin Bass (@kevinnbass)
He joined a number of health professionals and experts calling for a re-examination of the policies imposed in the name of mitigating the effects of COVID-19.
Some mainstream media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Associated Press and Newsweek, have begun to publish similar concerns.
Earlier this month, in a live television appearance on the BBC, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra took the network by surprise when he made the “unprompted” suggestion that mRNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, pose a cardiovascular risk.
BREAKING BBC News:
Cardiologist says likely contributory factor to excess cardiovascular deaths is covid mRNA vaccine and roll out should be suspended pending an inquiry.
We did it. We broke mainstream broadcast media
pic.twitter.com/F72YS7JAuE
— Dr Aseem Malhotra (@DrAseemMalhotra) January 13, 2023
Malhotra was one of the first to take the Pfizer vaccine and he publicly promoted the vaccines on TV. But once he thoroughly reviewed the scientific safety data, he became convinced the vaccines pose unprecedented harm, he told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), in an October 2022 interview.
Late Sunday night, Retsef Levi, Ph.D., with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, posted a video on Twitter calling for an end to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.
Levi said the vaccines failed to deliver the promised efficacy, and that based on his risk analysis, the vaccines “cause unprecedented levels of harm, including the death of young people and children.”
“This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products both in terms of efficacy and safety,” he said.
MIT Professor Calls for an Immediate Stop to the COVID mRNA Vaccination Program
“This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products both in terms of efficacy and safety”https://t.co/QP7hJ3IfFz
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 30, 2023
This weekend, Prasad announced he was joining the campaign by Bass and a number of doctors, researchers who are swearing not to take any more vaccines without randomized controlled trials (RCT).
“The issue with perpetual COVID-19 boosters is what evidence is needed to justify their push? The answer has to be randomized trials powered for reductions in severe disease, hospitalization and death.
“Yet the FDA seems to be moving in the opposite direction, thinking mouse antibody data is good enough. Now a number of doctors, researchers are swearing: no more boosters till RCT.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/elite-scientists-deaths-covid-newsweek/
Pfizer Pleased To Announce Their New Vaccine 90% Effective Against New Virus They Created
Babylon BeeNEW YORK, NY — Pfizer Inc. dropped their new COVID variant and accompanying vaccine Thursday at midnight, much to the delight of CDC officials. The new vaccine is reportedly shown to be 90% effective against the COVID variant Pfizer created in their lab.
“First there was the dream, now there is reality,” said Pfizer CEO Albert “Dirty Berty” Bourla from his planet-orbiting space fortress. “They said it couldn’t be done — that it was unethical — but we showed them!”
He elaborated, “A new variant is scary. That’s why we wanted to make sure the vaccine was ready to go right away. We had a lot of experience from causing myocarditis and then treating it, which was a big help.”
Pfizer scientists have been working double time to get both products ready for simultaneous release using a process they call “directed evolution.”
“First, we create a new virus variant,” explained Dr. Dumas, Pfizer’s head of bioweaponry. “Then, we get tons of people sick on purpose.”
“Ta-da! Directed evolution!”
Experts suggest Pfizer’s radical approach to virus treatment may be tantamount to an abusive relationship, but that’s okay because we probably deserve it.
“I’d suggest we investigate this immediately,” said Congresswoman AOC. “But I don’t want to burn any bridges. I might have to get a job there someday.”
According to sources, doctors across the nation are looking to boost their business with similar attempts at Directed Evolution. “First I break their kneecaps, and then I bandage them up. Medicine!” said one Detroit doctor.
Via https://babylonbee.com/news/pfizer-releases-new-vaccine-virus-combo-pack
Will Thailand take Pfizer to court for Fraud?
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter
Will Thailand become the first country to take Pfizer to court claiming fraud and declare the contracts null and void?
Professor Sucharit Bhakdi seems to think so. He claims to have talked to officials high up in government and told them that the contracts were fraudulent. According to him, the Thais want to be the first country in the world to declare the contracts null and void. If this goes ahead and found to be true in the courts, it will mean a significant sum of damages will have to be paid by Pfizer and set off a chain of events that will likely bankrupt the company.
23 days after the Thai King’s daughter had her booster, she collapsed and is still in a coma. Officially she has a bacterial infection but many claim she is the victim of vaccine damage. If the Thais do take Pfizer to court, will this have been the reason?
Top Thai authorities including advisors to the King have been in discussions with Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi and are prepared to see to it that the Pfizer contracts are declared null and void!!
The Royal Family has been alerted that the princess is most likely a victim of the jab!! pic.twitter.com/pdyasnDLzH
— Kat A
(@SaiKate108) January 29, 2023
[Click pic.twitter.com link to view Bitchute video]
Via https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/will-thailand-take-pfizer-to-court
Massive Fire Destroys Commercial Egg Farm Belonging To Top US Supplier
Zero HedgeDozens of food processing plants were destroyed and/or damaged last year by “accidental fires.” After several months of a lull in mysterious fires rippling through the food industry, the first major one of the new year was reported by NBC Connecticut on Saturday.
More than 100 firefighters battled a massive fire at a commercial egg farm in Bozrah, Connecticut, on Saturday afternoon.
According to Epoch Times, firefighters spent hours extinguishing a 150-foot-by-400-foot chicken coop at Hillandale Farms, which contained about 100,000 chickens.
A Salvation Army canteen truck was on the scene, providing food. According to the Salvation Army, about 100,000 chickens may have died in the fire. It also said that no injuries had been reported.
Hillandale Farms is one of the largest suppliers of chicken eggs in the US.
Their eggs are found in major supermarkets.
It’s unclear what the fire-damaged Bozrah location will mean for Hallandale Farms’ national egg supply chain. The fire comes at a time when the US suffers from a severe shortage of eggs due to bird flu wiping out tens of millions of egg-laying hens.
Egg shortages have been reported at supermarkets nationwide.
Prices of a dozen Grade A eggs at the supermarket have jumped to astronomical levels.
This could be the start of another string of suspicious fires at food plants. Citing Bloomberg data, news stories for “food plant fire” jumped the most in a decade last year. Odd right?
Some have speculated ‘food processing plants don’t just “accidentally”‘ catch on fire at the rate seen last year. Others are asking: Is the US food supply chain under attack?
[,,,]Via https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/massive-fire-destroys-commercial-egg-farm-belonging-top-us-supplier
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
