Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 473

Pentagon Rescinds COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks during a meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi at the Pentagon in Washington on Dec. 14, 2022. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Zachary Stieber

Epoch Times

 

The U.S. Department of Defense has withdrawn its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, a Pentagon official said on Jan. 5.

“We have rescinded the mandate,” Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters during a briefing.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a Biden appointee, imposed the mandate for all troops in August 2021, saying it was necessary to protect military readiness. The military had kept the mandate, which was for a primary series of a vaccine, in place even as the initial shots have proven increasingly less effective against infection and severe illness.

Even some of the original backers of the requirement, such as House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), said the mandate no longer made sense in light of such developments, and Congress inserted a provision into the 2023 defense funding bill that required Austin to rescind the mandate within 30 days of its enactment.

President Joe Biden signed the bill on Dec. 23, 2022. That same day, the Pentagon said it was halting all actions related to the mandate but that it had not yet withdrawn it.

Ryder told reporters Thursday that the military is in the process of developing “further guidance” on vaccines for the force after the withdrawal of the vaccination requirements.

“While that process takes place, we paused all actions related to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. So, we’ll be sure to keep members of the force, we’ll keep you, and keep the public updated, as we have new information available to provide,” Ryder said.

“I will say that we will continue to encourage all of our service members, civilian employees, and our contractor personnel to get vaccinated and boosted to ensure the readiness of our force. And as we’ve said, as I’ve said, the health and readiness of our force will continue to be crucial to our ability to defend the nation,” he added.

As of late 2022, nearly 8,500 troops had been discharged for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

The military has notoriously issued mass rejections for religious requests for exemptions to the mandate, triggering multiple court challenges. Judges had blocked three of the four branches from discharging most members seeking religious exemptions due to the treatment, which the judges said violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Just 0.5 percent of the religious accommodation requests have been approved by the Marines, followed by 1 percent for the Navy, 2.3 percent for the Air Force, and 6 percent for the Army. Thousands of requests were still not adjudicated before the mandate was withdrawn.

Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing members in some of the cases, celebrated the withdrawal of the mandate but said that the legal group would continue pursuing the litigation.

“While we are pleased that Joe Biden’s unlawful and abusive COVID shot mandate will be rescinded, this begrudging reversal under pressure by Congress is not enough,” Staver said in a statement.

He pointed to a Pentagon memorandum (pdf) that stated service members who applied for religious accommodation would have any adverse action taken in response remain in their files.

“The Department of Defense and the military branches have taken the position that any service member who requested a religious accommodation was disrupting good order and discipline. Astoundingly, those who defend the Constitution and the laws of the land are considered insubordinate when they request that the laws for which they pledge their lives be upheld. This is the twisted world under the Biden administration,” Staver said.

“Our legal case will continue because without the injunctions, service members will continue to face retaliation for requesting a religious accommodation. Service members who have been loyal to the country and faithful to their religious convictions have suffered greatly under this mandate, and we will continue to seek justice for them,” he said.

Applies to National Guard?

The Army has taken the position that the defense funding bill does not apply to the National Guard, according to a recent memorandum.

Austin’s original mandate was for all troops, but he issued a second, supplemental directive in November 2021 that made clear all members of the National Guard must be vaccinated by deadlines set by the Army or Air Force or they would be unable to participate in drills, training, and other duty.

Austin also said that the Pentagon could not fund duties performed by Guard members who did not get vaccinated.

The Army’s memo says that the funding bill’s forced withdrawal of the mandate “does not address” the latter directive “for members of the national guard and ready reserve.”

It ordered commanders to keep adhering to the directive until it is “superseded or rescinded” by Austin.

[…]Via https://www.theepochtimes.com/pentagon-has-rescinded-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-spokesman_4966613.html

 

Top HHS Official Blocked Release of Long-Delayed Fluoride Toxicity Review

  By Derrick Broze

Newly released emails reveal that leadership within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health acted to prevent the release of long-delayed review of fluoride’s toxicity by the National Toxicology Program.

The emails specifically claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine intervened to stop the release of the NTP review, also known internally as a monograph.

An email dated June 3, 2022, shows Nicole Johnson, associate director for policy, partnerships and strategic communication in CDC’s Oral Health Division contacting Jennifer Greaser, a senior public health policy analyst in CDC’s Washington office.

Johnson states:

“The latest we heard (yesterday) is that ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”

ASH Levine refers to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health, Rachel Levine.

The emails were released as part of the ongoing legal dispute between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and plaintiffs Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network and others who are seeking an end to water fluoridation.

Throughout the historic lawsuit, the plaintiffs have argued that the practice violates the EPA’s Toxic Substances Abuse Act.

Hearings for the lawsuit began in June 2020 but were delayed for more than two years after U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen put the proceedings on hold pending the release of the NTP’s review of all of the available research on fluoride.

The NTP had previously claimed the review would be available in May 2022. However, the review has not been made public and hearings have been delayed and rescheduled as the judge awaited the NTP’s conclusions.

In late October 2022, Judge Chen ended the two-year stay on the lawsuit when he ruled that the NTP review could be viewed in its unpublished form to better inform his final decision. However, due to concerns from the EPA, Judge Chen ruled that the report could not be made public unless the NTP releases it.

On Dec. 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed several exhibits with Judge Chen, including a redacted version of the NTP’s assessment of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and internal emails between the CDC and the NTP which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.

What do the #FluorideEmails reveal?

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, outlined the findings of the emails in several exhibits submitted to Judge Chen. “These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report,” Connett writes.

[…]

Jay Sanders, education & outreach director with the Fluoride Action Network, told The Last American Vagabond he believes the emails “reveal a concerted effort at the highest level of the U.S. public health bureaucracy to squash a key report on fluoride neurotoxicity.”

Sanders also stated the emails “show the lengths these agencies are willing to go to to protect their pet project, fluoridation, from any scientific scrutiny.”

Together with the June 3, 2022, email, these communications point to direct intervention from the head of the NIH and the assistant secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The emails confirm what has long been suspected. Namely, that government officials at some level were preventing the release of this important review on the toxicity of fluoride.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fluoride-toxicity-drinking-water/

2 of 5 Kids have Multiple Food Allergies – Childhood Vaccines Implicated

By The Defender Staff

Two in five U.S. children and nearly half of adults with a food allergy are allergic to multiple foods, according to new research which also found that as the number of food allergies a person has increases, so does the effect on their physical and psychological health. Recent research by Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., CHD’s chief scientific officer, found that fully vaccinated children were 4.31 times more likely to suffer from serious allergies (requiring an epi-pen) compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.

Two in five U.S. children and nearly half of adults with a food allergy are allergic to multiple foods, according to research published last month in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

The researchers, led by Northwestern University’s Christopher Warren, Ph.D., also found that as the number of food allergies a person has increases, so does the effect on their physical and psychological health.

[…]

Food allergies are part of a chronic and growing public health epidemic in the U.S., afflicting 32 million Americans, including 5.6 million children under age 18.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that allergy prevalence rose by approximately 50% between 1997 and 2011.

Between 1997 and 2008, the prevalence of peanut or tree nut allergy appears to have more than tripled among U.S. children.

[…]

Food allergies and vaccines: What’s the connection?

In a recent episode of VSRF (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) weekly update, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) chairman and chief litigation counsel, and VSRF founder Steve Kirsch discussed the relationship between the explosion of food allergies over the last five decades and childhood vaccination.

According to Kennedy, in 1968, the rate of chronic disease in the U.S. was 6% among children. By 1986, that had risen to 11.8% and by 2006, it was up to 54%. That means that more than half of U.S. children have neurological diseases (ADHD, autism, etc.), obesity, autoimmune disease and allergic diseases.

“All of this appeared in epidemic form suddenly in 1989,” Kennedy said. These chronic health conditions existed prior to that, but the numbers started soaring in 1989.

As a founder of the Food Allergy Initiative, now the Food Allergy Research and Education network, which raised more than $200 million for allergy research, Kennedy explained that most research focused on treating allergies rather than understanding their causes.

These treatments, he said, are developed by inducing allergies in lab rats. Researchers inject rats with aluminum adjuvants from the hepatitis vaccine, along with the protein for the given allergen being studied.

The aluminum “does not just give you allergies to materials that are in that vaccine, it will give you an allergy to materials that are in the ambient environment,” Kennedy explained. “So if you get that vaccine when there is a Timothy weed outbreak, you may now have a lifetime allergy to Timothy weed.”

Recent research by Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., CHD’s chief scientific officer, found that fully vaccinated children were 4.31 times more likely to suffer from serious allergies (requiring an epi-pen) compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.

Hooker’s findings affirmed research by Anthony Mawson, M.A., doctor of public health, an epidemiologist and professor at Jackson State University, which showed a 3.9-time increase in allergies reported among vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children.

According to Kennedy, there are hundreds of studies with similar outcomes. “We created an entire generation of all these allergies by giving them these early vaccines.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/food-allergies-kids-mental-physical-health/

Israel Arrested 410 Palestinians for Social Media Activity in 2022

Aletho News

 

MEMO | January 5, 2023

Israeli occupation authorities arrested 410 Palestinians, including women, children, journalists, activists and community leaders, for expressing their opinion on social media, according to a report by the Palestine Centre for Prisoners Studies (PCPS).

The report, co-authored by the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Prisoners’ Affairs, the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society, Addameer Association for Prisoner Care and Human Rights and the Wadi Hilweh Centre highlighted Israel’s use of a new ‘Vigilance Unit’ to monitor Palestinian social media accounts and issue recommendations to the security authorities to arrest them on the pretext that their opinions and publications call for incitement and violence.

PCPS Director, Riyad Al-Ashqar, said the Israeli courts charged the detainees with “incitement” for simply expressing their opinion on social media, including posting a picture of a martyr or merely mentioning his/her name, or issuing an invitation to protect Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Palestinians have been sentenced to between several months and several years in jail by the occupation’s courts on charges of incitement, while some were being held under administrative detention without charge or trial.

Israeli authorities also forced detainees to sign pledges not to use social media platforms for several months, in addition to issuing financial fines and placing some under house arrest.

Al-Ashqar indicated that over the past few years, the number of Palestinians arrested for using social media platforms has increased from 145 arrests in 2018, to 184 in 2019, 220 in 2020, 390 in 2021, and 410 in 2022.

Via https://alethonews.com/2023/01/05/israel-arrested-410-palestinians-for-social-media-activity-in-2022-report-says/

Sudden Death: Number 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glanceMounting evidence shows the COVID shots are destroying people’s immune systems and are triggering turbo-charged cancersA survey by Steve Kirsch found sudden death is the No. 1 cause of death among those under the age of 65 who got the COVID jabMyocarditis as a cause of death is now registering across all age ranges but only for the vaccinated. Cardiac-related deaths are also significantly elevated among younger people (under 65) who got the jab compared to their unjabbed peersRecent research shows repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. By switching from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies, your body switches from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression modeIn addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok, IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications, as the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins

Evidence showing the COVID shots are a public health disaster keeps mounting. In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch1 and Jessica Rose,2 Ph.D., both published Substack articles detailing some of the latest evidence showing the shots are destroying people’s immune systems and have triggered an avalanche of turbo-charged cancers.

Kirsch’s article3 features results from a recent survey he conducted. It included four questions: age, whether the deceased was jabbed or not, year of death and cause of death. While the number of responses is low, major insights can still be gleaned by looking at the trends.

First, we have the baseline data from 2020, which show cancer was the No. 1 killer of Americans younger than 65, followed by hospital treatment for COVID. Turbo-charged cancers accounted for one-ninth of the cancer reports, and there were no reports of death from myocarditis.

Among seniors over the age of 65, preexisting conditions were the top cause of death in 2020. Cancer was second, COVID infection third and cardiac events fourth. There were no turbo-charged cancer deaths, nor any myocarditis deaths. Kirsch then gets into the differences between the vaxxed and the unvaxxed in 2021 and 2022.

What the Unvaxxed Died of in 2021 and 2022

In 2021 and 2022, the primary cause of death for people 65 and younger was hospital treatment for COVID. Incidences of sudden death, pulmonary embolism and turbo-charged cancers were all low, and there were no unknown causes of death, nor any myocarditis deaths.

The same went for people older than 65. Hospital treatment for COVID was the No. 1 killer. Heart attacks, turbo-charged cancer and sudden death were all low, and there were no deaths from myocarditis.

What the COVID-Jabbed Died of in 2021 and 2022

Among the COVID-jabbed aged 65 and younger, sudden death was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022. The second was cardiac-related death and cancer was third. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was significant in this group, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

Among those older than 65, cancer was the No. 1 cause of death, and the turbo-charged cancer rate is “huge compared to those without the vaccine.” Sudden death was also significantly elevated.

Stark Difference in Cancer Deaths Between Jabbed and Unjabbed

Kirsch summarizes the three most stunning differences between the jabbed and unjabbed:4

1. “Sudden death rates are off the charts for the vaccinated cf. unvaccinated for those <65 … It’s the #1 cause of death for this age group …

2. Myocarditis as a cause of death is registering now for both age ranges but only for the vaccinated …

3. Cardiac issues as a cause of death in vaccinated young people (<65) are significantly elevated vs. their unvaxxed peers.”

How COVID Jabs Raise Risk of Infections and Cancer

Exploding cancer rates is precisely what you would expect from a drug that impairs and destroys your immune system, which is what the COVID jabs do. The scientific paper “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations”5 describes how the COVID shots suppress your innate immune system by inhibiting the type-1 interferon pathway, which is the first-stage response to all viral infections.

The reason type-1 interferon is suppressed is because it responds to viral RNA, and there’s no viral RNA in the COVID shot. The RNA is modified to look like human RNA, so the interferon pathway doesn’t get triggered. As a result, the COVID jab makes you more susceptible to infections.

One mechanism by which the jab causes cancer has to do with the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes,6 a type of white blood cell that helps your body fight infections and chronic diseases such as cancer. That’s bad enough, yet that’s just one mechanism of many.

How the Jab Lowers Your Viral Clearance Capacity

Recent research7,8 also shows that repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses.

[…]

Spike Overexposure Also Opens the Door for Cancer

[…]

So, to summarize the effects in layman’s terms, the switch from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies switches your body from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode, as cancerous cells now can evade your immune system. You become “tumor tolerant” as your immune system is no longer scavenging for and eliminating cancer cells. Mowrey also points out that:12

[…]

What Other Health Effects May Result?

For clarification, IgG4 is a subclass of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody type that responds to repeated and/or long-term exposure to an antigen. The mRNA shot evaluated here was that of Pfizer, and it was compared against Janssen’s viral vector-based shot. Moderna’s shot was not included. Notably, these results were not found among people who got Janssen’s shot, only Pfizer’s Comirnaty jab.

Comirnaty … induces a shift away from a viral clearing to a tolerance-inducing antibody class, and this is not the status quo for traditional vaccines or natural infections. The main problem here is … we have no idea of the effects of this ‘effect.’ ~ Jessica Rose, Ph.D.

[…]

That said, we can look at what happens in people with IgG4-related disease, and start formulating hypotheses from there. As explained by Rose, a hallmark of IgG4-related disease is fibrosis, i.e., tissue scarring, which can lead to organ dysfunction, organ failure and even death if left untreated.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/01/06/sudden-death-after-covid-shots/

Time to Boycott: Companies Discriminating Against the Unvaccinated

Aletho News

Time to boycott

Almost a year ago, I wrote about the  against their employees just because they were unvaccinated against Covid-19. I suggested boycotting those companies until they changed their policies.

Hopefully some of this pressure made these companies see sense, as a lot of these discriminatory policies have now been removed.

However, a year on and some companies have found a loop hole, making them appear less discriminatory. Now, they can’t be seen to be discriminating against their unvaccinated employees because they will only employ vaccinated individuals in the first place!

So it’s time to name and shame again. If you know of any companies that are still treating their unvaccinated employees differently or only employing vaccinated individuals, then add their names in the comments sections below (please add a link to their policy for verification).

Below is a list of companies, that I have compiled, that require vaccination for employment. I have only included large companies but there are thousands of examples of small companies that also require vaccination. These are for jobs including administrators, care home workers, chefs, dentists, plumbers, nurses, software engineers and support workers to name but a few.

I find it amusing how many of these companies have equal opportunities sections in their job listing postings. Equal opportunities for anyone except the unvaccinated!

And if anyone from any of these companies reads this post, I would highly recommend that you remove your policies for two reasons. Firstly for discriminatory reasons connected to any future employment law issues and secondly, you don’t want to have pushed vaccination on employees, just in case it turns out that the vaccines weren’t as safe and effective as you thought.

I would also be interested in hearing from anyone who has been turned down from a job or interview if they are unvaccinated.

A selection of companies requiring or encouraging Covid-19 vaccination for employment.

Accenture (Accenture requires all new employees to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition of employment);Amazon (Workers in New York City who perform in-person work or interact with the public in the course of business must show proof they have been fully vaccinated against COVID or request and receive approval for a reasonable accommodation, including medical or religious accommodation);American Red Cross (As a condition of employment with American Red Cross, you are required to provide proof that you are fully vaccinated for COVID 19 or qualify for an exemption, except in states where it is prohibited by law);AstraZeneca (AstraZeneca requires all US employees to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 but will consider requests for reasonable accommodations as required by applicable law);Carnival UK (To keep everyone on board fit and well, colleagues who visit or work on our ships must be fully vaccinated, including boosters);CBS Studios (Must be fully vaccinated to work on-site. (To be considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine);Chainalysis (All employees are required to have or obtain a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment at Chainalysis, unless an exemption has been approved. All employees shall be required to report their vaccine status);Citi (Citi requires that all successful applicants for positions located in the United States or Puerto Rico be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment and provide proof of such vaccination prior to commencement of employment);Coca-Cola ( all new employees must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide Coke Canada with proof of vaccination);Coles (As part of that commitment, you will need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before joining the team at Coles, unless you’re medically exempt);Fitch Learning (part of Fitch Group) (UNITED STATES ONLY: As part of its continued efforts to maintain a safe workplace for employees, Fitch requires that all employees who receive a written offer of employment on or after October 4, 2021 be fully vaccinated (as defined by the CDC) against the coronavirus by the first day of employment as a condition of employment, to the extent permitted by applicable law);Jefferies Group LLC (It is Jefferies’ policy that all employees and visitors be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to enter any Jefferies office or participate in any Jefferies or client event in person. Should an offer of employment be made, your acceptance of that offer means that you will comply with this policy);Levi Strauss (LS&CO requires proof of being fully vaccinated for COVID-19 as a condition of commencing employment, except in those jurisdictions where prohibited by law);Marella Cruises (Please note that all applicants must be fully vaccinated against Covid-19).

[…]

NSF International (NSF requires all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment, with exceptions only as required by law);OmniAb (New hires based in the US will be required to demonstrate that they have been fully vaccinated and boosted for COVID-19 or qualify for a medical or religious exemption or accommodation to this vaccination requirement);Overseas Adventure Travel (All trip leaders are required to be double vaccinated and boosted (as are all of our passengers));Paypal (Depending on location, this might include a Covid-19 vaccination requirement for any employee whose role requires them to work onsite);Qantas Airways ( It is the intention of the Qantas Group to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and this is being explored in all our international locations);Universal Music Group (All UMG employees are currently required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide proof of a negative PCR or Antigen test before entering any Company offices unless they have been approved for an exemption or unless prohibited by applicable law);Visier (As part of this commitment, we require all employees to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 or qualify for an exemption);ZE UK (Accordingly, following with provincial and federal vaccination’s approach, we require that all of our employees to be fully vaccinated and provide their proof of vaccination or substantiated grounds for exemption);

[…]

Via

False Match Leads to Wrongful Arrest, Prompting Calls to Ban Facial Recognition Technology

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

Fight for the Future, a digital rights group, called for an “all-out ban” on facial recognition technology in response to the arrest of a man wrongfully accused of theft and jailed for a week by Louisiana authorities whose use of the technology mistakenly identified the man.

Instead of enjoying a late Thanksgiving meal with his mother in Georgia, Randal Reid spent nearly a week in jail in November after he was falsely identified as a luxury purse thief by Louisiana authorities using facial recognition technology.

That’s according to Monday reporting by NOLA.com, which caught the attention of Fight for the Future, a digital rights group that has long advocated against law enforcement and private entities using such technology, partly because of its shortcomings and the risk of outcomes like this.

“So much wrong here,” Fight for the Future said Tuesday, sharing the story on Twitter.

The group highlighted that many cops can use facial recognition systems without publicly disclosing it, and anyone’s “life can be upended because of a machine’s mistake.”

 

Reid — a 28-year-old Black man misidentified as one of three people who allegedly stole over $10,000 in Chanel and Louis Vuitton purses from a pair of shops via bogus credit card purchases — was pulled over by local police in Georgia’s Dekalb County on Nov. 25, while he was driving on Interstate 20 to meet up with his mother, NOLA.com reported.

“They told me I had a warrant out of Jefferson Parish. I said, ‘What is Jefferson Parish?,’” Reid recalled. “I have never been to Louisiana a day in my life. Then they told me it was for theft. So not only have I not been to Louisiana, I also don’t steal.”

Reid wasn’t released from the Dekalb County jail until Dec. 1. While behind bars, he worried about losing his job as a transportation analyst and being convicted of felonies that he did not commit.

“Not eating, not sleeping. I’m thinking about these charges. Not doing anything because I don’t know what’s really going on the whole time,” he said. “They didn’t even try to make the right ID.”

Tommy Calogero, Reid’s lawyer, told NOLA.com that Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) detectives “tacitly” admitted the misidentification and rescinded a July warrant.

The news outlet noted that court records show a Baton Rouge Police Department detective “adopted JPSO’s identification of Reid to secure an arrest warrant” for one of the thefts.

According to the report:

“Sheriff Joe Lopinto’s office did not respond to several requests for information on Reid’s arrest and release, the agency’s use of facial recognition, or any safeguards around it.

“That office also denied a formal request for the July 18 arrest warrant for Reid and copies of policies or purchases related to facial recognition, citing an ongoing investigation.”

Baton Rouge police also did not respond to questions about its warrant for Reid’s arrest. The warrant, signed by 19th Judicial District Judge Eboni Rose, does not say how Lopinto’s office identified Reid.

As Fight for the Future summarized:

“Police blindly trusted a facial recognition scan to arrest a man in Georgia. He was wrongly imprisoned for a WEEK. Now (surprise, surprise) the cops are stonewalling the press about their failure.”

Experts from the ACLU of Louisiana and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) shared concerns with NOLA.com about police use of the technology — which, as research has shown, more frequently misidentifies people of color.

In response to reporting on Reid’s experience, the national ACLU on Tuesday stressed the flaws of facial recognition tools and asserted that “law enforcement must drop this dangerous technology — we shouldn’t have to worry about being falsely arrested because an algorithm gets it wrong.

So much wrong here. Police blindly trusted a facial recognition scan to arrest a man in Georgia. He was wrongly imprisoned for a WEEK. Now (surprise, surprise) the cops are stonewalling the press about their failure https://t.co/gSda58u0Mo

— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@fightfortheftr) January 3, 2023

The national ACLU has previously called on policymakers to end law enforcement use of facial recognition technology across the United States — including after the January 2020 wrongful arrest of Robert Williams, a Black man in Michigan misidentified as a shoplifting suspect.

“My daughters can’t unsee me being handcuffed and put into a police car. But they can see me use this experience to bring some good into the world,” Williams wrote in a June 2020 opinion piece.

Williams continued:

“I keep thinking about how lucky I was to have spent only one night in jail — as traumatizing as it was. Many Black people won’t be so lucky. My family and I don’t want to live with that fear. I don’t want anyone to live with that fear.”

Even before Williams’ arrest, Fight for the Future and partners groups launched a “Ban Facial Recognition” campaign, which has tracked restrictions and known uses of the technology as well as enabled constituents to pressure lawmakers to ban it.

Despite some progress in restricting or banning law enforcement’s use of such tools at the local and state levels, the United States still lacks federal law on the topic.

“Like nuclear or biological weapons, facial recognition poses a threat to human society and basic liberty that far outweighs any potential benefits,” the campaign’s website argues.

The campaign’s website continues:

“Silicon Valley lobbyists are disingenuously calling for light ‘regulation’ of facial recognition so they can continue to profit by rapidly spreading this surveillance dragnet. They’re trying to avoid the real debate: whether technology this dangerous should even exist.”

According to the campaign, “Industry-friendly and government-friendly oversight will not fix the dangers inherent in law enforcement’s use of facial recognition: We need an all-out ban.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/false-match-wrongful-arrest-facial-recognition-cd/

WHO’s Cancer Research Agency to Assess 5G Health Risks — But Not Until 2025

By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer will participate in a project to assess the health risks of exposure to 5G technologies, but critics accused the agency of ignoring already existing evidence and suggested the results could be tainted by industry partners.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on Monday announced it will participate in a new project that includes assessing the health risks of exposure to 5G technologies.

According to IARC, the project will “develop tools and instrumentation for reliable evaluation of exposure, conduct experimental studies (in vitro, animal, and human studies) on potential cancer risks, and develop effective health risk communication materials for stakeholders.”

The project — Scientific-Based Exposure and Risk Assessment of Radiofrequency and Millimetre-Wave Systems (SEAWave) — aims to identify differences in exposure patterns between 5G and earlier mobile technologies, such as 2G-4G.

Horizon Europe and SERI (Switzerland) are co-funding the project, which will culminate with a risk assessment of 5G, set to be released in 2025.

Experts on the health risks of exposure to 5G technologies told The Defender that risk assessments should have been conducted years ago.

“A risk assessment should have been performed before the 5G rollout — and not years after it started,” Mona Nilsson, managing director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, said.

Instead, Nilsson said, “entire populations” have for several years been “effectively turned into 5G lab rats in a dangerous experiment.”

Eileen O’Connor, co-founder and director of the EM Radiation Research Trust in the U.K. and board member of the International EMF Alliance, agreed.

“Why isn’t IARC calling for the precautionary principle as a matter of urgency rather than agreeing to an assessment on 5G?” O’Connor asked. “There is enough evidence and reason for concern regarding public health associated with 2G, 3G and 4G,” she said.

According to O’Connor, “The whole population will be exposed to untested and unregulated [electromagnetic] radiation, which they will absorb into their bodies and without any public agreement. Too many reports and reviews delay and deny the precautionary approach due to economic interests.”

“It’s time for action,” said O’Connor, adding that she is “deeply concerned” about the role “that special interests and industry lobbying are playing.”

“It’s time to demand accountability for the imposition of this technology in every corner of our lives, and time to demand accountability on the part of the individuals who are voting to put this technology in place without a single safety test having been conducted for 5G, as established by U.S. Senator Blumenthal during congressional hearings on 5G,” she said.

Why is ‘risk communication’ last on SEAWave agenda?

According to the IARC, the agency plans to “play a critical role in the later stages of the project by coordinating a comprehensive evaluation of the project’s experimental studies and a review of the latest literature on millimeter-wave frequencies and health effects” — effectively making it the main arbiter for which scientific studies are considered when determining whether there is scientific evidence of health risks posed by 5G.

According to its website, the SEAWave project consists of completing 11 interlinked smaller projects — called “work packages” — initiated at its kick-off meeting and co-design workshop.

SEAWave plans to complete eight work packages, including studies focusing on types of 5G exposure and health outcomes, and then assess the risk of 5G on human health as its ninth work package.

After that, the project will address how to communicate risk to the public.

Scientists who invoke the precautionary principle said risk communication regarding 5G and wireless technologies — such as the use of wireless headphones like Apple’s popular AirPods — should be proactive, not retroactive.

Health risks associated with 5G already known, critics say

Nilsson — who has authored two books on the health risks associated with wireless radiation and co-authored an academic publication titled “International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation” — said the IARC press release “gives the impression that we do not already know that there is massive scientific evidence of harmful effects from previous generations of telecommunication technology (2G, 3G WiFi).”

[…]

It has been more than a decade, O’Connor explained, since members of the IARC classified the entire RF-EMF spectrum as a “2B Possible Human Carcinogen.” The vote was “nearly unanimous: 29 to 1,” she added.

Since then, O’Connor said, more human studies and toxicology studies in animals, which demonstrated clear evidence of tumors, have added to the evidence of increased cancer risks.

In 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) — part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — determined in a $30 million study that there was “clear evidence” that electromagnetic radiation is associated with cancer and DNA damage.

“The $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program RF [radio frequency] studies and the Italian Ramazzini Institute’s 10-year research project both found clear evidence of malignant tumors,” she said.

“Two different institutes,” O’Connor emphasized, “with laboratories in different countries, totally independent of each other and both producing parallel consistent findings, reinforces the validity of these groundbreaking animal studies.”

[…]

O’Connor noted that a worldwide list of all peer-reviewed scientific studies, through May 2020, on human health around mobile phone base stations and cell towers, compiled by Karl Muller and the EM-Radiation Research Trust, showed consistent findings of health problems. “Out of 33 studies, 32 (or 97%) reported health problems,” she said.

The only study that did not find health problems was a “very poor study of cancer in Bavaria that by its own admission did not have sufficient controls,” she said.

Just last year, 250 scientists signed a petition to the United Nations that took aim at both non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, and cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit RF radiation.

[…]

Nilsson also noted that IARC’s press release included the “misleading claim” that many exposure parameters of 5G are similar to those of 2G-4G. “But we know that 5G has already led to a massive exposure increase compared to previous generations according to the measurements performed so far during the 5G rollout,” she said.

“The fact that 5G massively increases radiation exposure is also why the telecom sector has lobbied various governments — such as Brussels, Switzerland and Italy — to relax their radiation limits, because they will not be able to roll out 5G as planned otherwise.”

Now years into the 5G rollout, she said, exposure levels “exceed 1 million microwatts per square meter in peak values — which is far above what is known to cause harmful effects in terms of sleep disturbances, headache, dizziness, tinnitus, heart arrhythmia, and fatigue.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-health-risks-world-health-organization/

 

 

Here’s the COVID Vaccine Injury Report CDC Was Forced to Release

By Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System safety signal analysis for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events among U.S. adults.

SummaryCenters for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022, for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which more than 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times greater than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the U.S. since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heart rate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care and having anticoagulant therapy.There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis and appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo and vaccine breakthrough infection.The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID-19 vaccines administered.

There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.

In August 2022, the CDC told The Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.”

So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method — meaning they “generally” found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals — or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

Introduction

Finally! Zachary Stieber at The Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture.

The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on Dec. 14, 2020, through to the end of July 2022.

The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally three days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request for it).

Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited more than 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021 — especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system.

You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known.

I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

Background on safety signal analysis

Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a FOIA request for the safety signal monitoring of the VAERS — the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021.

Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on.

But by August 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022, through the end of July. You can get up to speed on that here.

The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market).

The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe.

We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don’t know how many people take a given drug).

We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case, they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)

[…]

So what did the CDC actually do?

The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 2022 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete.

The safety signal analysis compares adverse events reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 29, 2022, to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan. 1, 2009, through July 29, 2022.

[…]

Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis.

[…]

What safety signals did the CDC find?

[…]

There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19-related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines.

[…]

 

You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

[…]

What about the children?

If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+.

There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-19-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

[…]

Comparisons to myocarditis and pericarditis

We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence and stall any investigation into them as long as possible.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-vaers-covid-vaccines-serious-injuries/

 

Study: Carcinogenic Chemicals in Green Cleaning Products

Chemical Free Life

In recent years, many savvy consumers have made the switch from commercial home cleaning products (known to contain toxic and even carcinogenic chemicals) to “green” cleaning products in the belief that so-called green products (as in good for you, your pets and the environment) are a healthier, smarter choice. But researchers investigating this belief have now uncovered a disturbing reality: While the majority of commercial home cleaning products tested contain toxic chemicals, at least a quarter of the “green” products contained toxins, including carcinogenic chemicals, as well.

.Study overview

The study was a part of the Lifting Up Communities by Intervening with Research (LUCIR) Study”. Scientists measured air concentrations of potentially hazardous volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs, respectively) released from both traditional and green cleaning products in both a home setting and a controlled laboratory setting.

The study focused on “chemicals that might increase women’s risk of breast cancer, including possible carcinogens, reproductive/developmental toxicants, or endocrine disruptors.”

Researchers found a correlation between the use of both conventional and “green” cleaning products and higher concentrations of chemical toxins emitted into the air. Seventy-five percent of the highest VOC emissions were emitted by conventional cleaning products, but researchers also identified VOC emissions of concern from green products.

The research team found that air concentrations of certain VOCs and SVOCs, like chloroform and carbon tetrachloride, were higher in the breathing zones of participants in a home setting. In the laboratory chamber, increases in VOC emissions were also present, with the majority (75%) associated with conventional products while only 25% were associated with “green” products.

Additionally, the researchers uncovered elevated levels of some chemicals, specifically fragrance chemicals (possible endocrine disruptors), associated with use of some “green” cleaning products.–

Solution

There is still no official “green” standard or legal parameters for what may or may not be contained in products sold as “green”.  This leaves consumers on their own to know if the products they purchase contain toxic chemicals–including chemicals known to be carcinogenic.  The statistical odds for exposure to toxic chemicals are lower for green cleaners than commercial, mainstream products. However, the best solution is to make your own cleaning products.  If you are unable to do that, read the ingredients labels on the green products and avoid those that list “fragrances”.

For more recipes for DIY cleaning products and personal care products, go to our Chemical Watch Blog, scroll to the bottom of any blog post and enter “DIY” or “Solutions” in the Search box at the bottom of the post. You can also contact us via our secure email system here and we will do a search for you of our internal database.

[…]

Via https://chemical-free-life.org/2023/01/05/carcinogenic-chemicals-in-green-cleaning-products-study/