Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 500
October 23, 2022
Repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Act of 1986
el gato maloMuch as been made about the possibility of schools mandating covid vaccinations for kids to be allowed to attend.
It may or may not happen. perhaps it will be treated like a flu shot. perhaps they’ll try for requirements. it’s likely to vary place to place and many states are already saying “no way” and if imposed this could cause flood of school change and really unleash the idea of vouchers and free choice and a swansong for public schools.
In the end, I’m not sure how many are crazy enough to try it and honestly, I doubt that any public school system in America could survive for long mandating this.
I doubt that this is really what the approval is about.
it’s about the liability shield and the subsidies.
And that is a thing we need to fix.
Longtime gatopal
Jennifer Cabrera has a simple, common sense solution here:
If the predicted red wave produces a strong Republican majority in Congress, one of their first acts should be to repeal the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
No excuses, Republicans. Liability is the only mechanism that can produce safe vaccines.
— Jennifer Cabrera
(@jhaskinscabrera) October 19, 2022
Because this law is an abomination.
It creates ALL the wrong incentives and has swollen the US pediatric vaccine schedule (which used to be 3 well tested vaxxes, MMR, DTP, polio) with ineffective or marginally effective crap lacking valid risk reward and possessing meaningful side effect tails.
The case for several (HPV, flu, rota, pneumococcal) is basically non-extant.
But hey, no liability, no need to worry.
Interestingly, Gardasil does not appear to have this coverage hence the mass of lawsuits.
[…]
Landing in court on this is not, perhaps “the system working” as this vaccine looks to have been approved and marketed on numerous false pretenses and perhaps outright fraud but it at least the system is cleaning up its mess after the fact and discouraging such behavior in the future.
And the covid vaccines put all the others in the shade in terms of corners cut and data looking dodgy. but if we shield them and other things like them from liability, where is the disincentive to act badly? (and if you just said “because the drug companies wouldn’t lie to us!” I have some Denver harbor bonds to sell you.)
[…]You can get around this exemption by pfinding phraud, but should this really be necessary (especially when they hide the data and thus could have all sorts of little gems in it that the public had not seen)?
So how about we end this harmful “safe harbor” instead?
There is NO good consumer protection reason for this act. it’s a license for pharma to misbehave and it eliminates accountability and incentive to test properly. if you want to jab your drugs into kids, you need to own the side effects.
If you fail to predict or disclose risks, you own the ill outcomes instantly and forever.
[…]
Via https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/repeal-the-national-childhood-vaccine
Container Imports to Los Angeles and Long Beach Plummeting
Port of LA imports haven’t been this low in September since 2009
Easy Money
(Greg Miller) September is usually a strong month for West Coast imports as U.S. companies bring in their year-end holiday goods. Not so in 2022.
On Wednesday, the Port of Los Angeles reported its lowest import total for September since 2009, amid the Great Recession. The day before, the neighboring Port of Long Beach posted its weakest import total for September since 2016.
Imports to Southern California ports are falling fast because shippers have shifted volumes to East and Gulf coast ports, fearing disruptions from West Coast port labor negotiations. Simultaneously, volumes are now pulling back nationwide due to falling demand.
Holiday imports ‘dropped precipitously’“In the month of September is where the real story lies,” explained Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, during a news conference on Wednesday.
Earlier this year, imports of durable goods bought heavily during the pandemic — furniture, appliances, etc. — began pulling back. In September, declines were heavily driven by reductions in holiday goods, as well.
“September is traditionally a high-volume month for end-of-year products,” said Seroka. “Think toys and games, clothing, footwear and other products. Those holiday gift items dropped precipitously compared to last September, mainly because they came in earlier. This year our peak season was in June and July, as savvy importers moved up the arrival of these goods to bring some certainty back to when they could get to market.”
Commenting on the shift to East and Gulf coast ports, Seroka said “concern over the dockworkers labor contract negotiations [was] a major factor contributing to volume declines.” He believes the shift “is likely to continue until a West Coast labor contract is in place — and that can’t happen soon enough.” The previous contract expired July 1.
Asked by American Shipper how October’s volumes are shaping up versus September’s, he said they will be “probably about the same or a little bit lighter. It’s going to be a soft October.”
LA September imports down 15% vs. AugustThe Port of Los Angeles reported total throughput of 709,873 twenty-foot equivalent units in September, down 21.5% year on year (y/y). Exports came in at 77,680 TEUS, up 2.6% y/y, while empties totaled 288,731 TEUs, down 19.8% y/y.
Loaded imports to Los Angeles totaled just 343,462 TEUs, down 26.6% y/y. Imports fell 15.1% sequentially versus August, following a 16.7% drop in August versus July.
Los Angeles’ imports reached their highest level this year in May. September imports were down 31.3% compared to that month. Imports in September were the lowest for any month since May 2020, when the U.S. was in the midst of COVID-19 lock downs.
The Port of Long Beach reported total throughput of 741,823 TEUs for September, down 0.9% y/y. Exports came in at 112,940 TEUs, up 1.9% y/y, and empties totaled 286,212 TEUs, up 7% y/y.
Long Beach handled 342,671 TEUs of imports in September, down 7.4% y/y and down 10.9% sequentially versus August. As in Los Angeles, Long Beach’s imports peaked this year in May. September was down 27.5% from that high. Monthly imports have not been this low since June 2020.
Port of Long Beach Executive Director Mario Cordero blamed the import decline on consumer and retail concerns about inflation, “leading to warehouses filled with inventory and fewer product orders from Asia.”
Fewer ships being worked at berthsThe focus during the supply chain crisis was on the massive number of container ships at anchorages or loitering offshore as they waited for berths in Los Angeles or Long Beach. Statistics from the Marine Exchange of Southern California show a steep drop throughout this year, from a high of 109 waiting container ships Jan. 9 to just four on Wednesday, the lowest number since October 2020.
The Marine Exchange also collects data on the number of container ships at the berths in the two ports. This data also shows a major — and more recent — change.
As the supply crisis intensified, there were often over 30 ships at the two ports’ berths each day. Between August 2021 and February 2022, there were an average of 28.8 container vessels alongside in Los Angeles and Long Beach daily.
In recent weeks, however, the numbers have sunk to much lower levels. The average from Sept. 1 through Tuesday was 19 ships alongside, down over 30% from peak levels. There were 18 ships at the ports’ berths Tuesday. There were only 10 ships alongside on Sept. 12.
[…]
October 22, 2022
The “Free World” isn’t looking so free these days
Jordan SchachtelThe Anglosphere is completely captured by globalist interests.
The world’s English-speaking nations that share historical and ideological ties — commonly referred to as the Anglosphere — were once understood as the world’s most powerful beacons for the tenets of freedom. Through our elected politicians in 2022, however, this social contract has vanished, and its ideas are completely absent within the halls of political power. In today’s Anglosphere, it’s difficult to find a politician or policymaker, on either side of the dominant political factions of government, who genuinely defends the enlightenment principles that sparked the incredible and unprecedented human flourishing of past decades and centuries.
The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This morning, British Prime Minister Liz Truss announced her resignation after only 6 weeks in office.
Much of the legacy media cited a “Tory revolt,” leading the Free World normies to believe that perhaps some kind of freedom rebellion has occurred.
In fact, just the opposite is true. Truss, they say, stepped out of line by proposing a “risky plan” to cut taxes.
Today’s U.K. tories believe in what amounts to communism + tax cuts, but the tax cuts are negotiable. And with a global recession and economic crisis underway, the Oxbridge-educated, World Economic Forum-groomed U.K. politicians ousted the British PM after only 44 days.
NEW – UK's Liz Truss resigns, making her the shortest PM in history. pic.twitter.com/PEoNazwJTP
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) October 20, 2022
Much of the legacy media cited a “Tory revolt,” leading the Free World normies to believe that perhaps some kind of freedom rebellion has occurred.
In fact, just the opposite is true. Truss, they say, stepped out of line by proposing a “risky plan” to cut taxes.
Today’s U.K. tories believe in what amounts to communism + tax cuts, but the tax cuts are negotiable. And with a global recession and economic crisis underway, the Oxbridge-educated, World Economic Forum-groomed U.K. politicians ousted the British PM after only 44 days.
Repeat to fade: pic.twitter.com/OmLbg0fJXb
— Bob Moran (@bobscartoons) October 20, 2022
British political observers now believe that a man named Rishi Sunak, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the tory frontrunner to replace Truss as prime minister.
Sunak went to Oxford, and he speaks like this:
“The challenge of climate change is clear, and it is urgent. We need to ensure a positive and fair transition to net zero.”
In other words, out with the old marionette, and in with the new.
But it’s not just the U.K. that has this issue.
Every country in the Anglosphere has a puppet “in charge” of the government. And the major “opposing” parties are largely captured by the same Build Back Better, Great Reset, Fourth Industrial Revolution, Climate Crisis, etc. agenda. The Free World has become a globalist uniparty for authoritarian control.
Joe Biden, Liz Truss’s coming replacement, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, and Anthony Albanese, along with the forces seeking to replace them (except for some elements of the GOP, arguably) all remain committed to an anti-liberty agenda that imposes globalist ruin upon humanity.
What happened to the Free World? It’s difficult to pinpoint, and remains debatable, when exactly the notion became a complete illusion, and when virtually all of our representatives were captured by anti-human forces.
But it has become quite clear that these issues will not be resolved through the ballot box. In order for humanity to flourish once more, solutions must be found outside of the political system.
In 2022, the Anglosphere that once represented the Free World is nothing but an illusion. On the bright side of the global power grab that was COVID Mania, and the brutal authoritarian actions imposed by Anglosphere governments, was the awakening of millions of minds to this unmistakable reality.
The “Free World” has been completely captured by anti-human forces. Now, more than ever, solutions must be found far removed from the ballot box.
[…]
Via https://dossier.substack.com/p/the-free-world-isnt-looking-so-free
“Experts” now admit you will NEVER be “fully vaccinated”
Kit Knightly
OffGardian
We at OffG – and many of our fellow alt media sites – have been reporting for over a year now that the Covid “vaccination” campaign will never end.
In short, you will NEVER be “fully vaccinated”.
That much was obvious once health institutions around the world started “updating” their definition of the term.
Israel. America. Britain. New Zealand. Australia…they all did it, and it came as no surprise.
From the beginning, the “pandemic” has been created, policed, enforced and perpetuated through nothing but rhetorical tricks and manipulative language. News names for old things. New definitions for old words.
“Covid” has always been nothing but a pandemic of terminology. The fluid nature of “fully vaccinated” is just another example.
It has already ballooned from “double-jabbed” to “boosted” and “double-boosted”, and with new “vaccines” expected for all the variants, it doesn’t look like any end is on the horizon.
As I said, you’ll never really be “fully vaccinated”…and now they’re admitting it.
In yet another attempt at control through language manipulation, there’s a push on to completely scrub the term “fully vaccinated” from the Covid discourse.
Yesterday NBC News ran this piece, which headlines:
It’s time to stop saying ‘fully vaccinated’ for Covid, experts say—here’s why
Before going on to claim:
If you still say “fully vaccinated” for Covid, it’s time to stop. With new boosters on the market and an ever-evolving virus, experts say the term no longer means being the most protected you can be. They point to two, far more appropriate alternatives to use in this current phase of the pandemic
They also recommend “adjusting your vocabulary” with their suggested new alternative: “up to date”, a frank admission that the Covid boosters will keep on coming, potentially forever.
Essentially, having spent 18 months convincing millions of people to get “fully vaccinated”, they’re now messing with language again to reverse course and strip that designation away.
Meaning all those people who dutifully took their clot shots are not only no longer considered “fully vaccinated”, but never will be, and are now not even allowed to use that phrase because it creates a false impression.
The good news is that vaccine uptake is slowing – it has been for months – and this transparent effort to lay the ground for future booster campaigns will likely fall flat on its face.
[…]
Via https://off-guardian.org/2022/10/22/experts-now-admit-you-will-never-be-fully-vaccinated/
How the Anglo/American Elite Created Hitler
Conjuring Hitler
Guido Giacomo Preparata
Pluto Press (2005)
Book Review
Available free online via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/conjuringhitlerh0000prep_p5u8/
Part 1
This fascinating book presents a wealth of research into 1) the plot hatched by British intelligence in 1898 to destroy Germany via an industrial-scale war, 2) the Anglo-British plot to end the regime of Tsar Nicholas II by financing communist and Bolshevik militias in 1917, 3) the political chicanery behind the 1919 Versailles Treaty that officially ended World War I, 4) the careful grooming and financing by British intelligence of National Socialist Workers Party founder Adolph Hitler starting in 1924 (following his release from prison), 5) the real reason the Allies invaded the Soviet Union in January 1918, 6) the role of the Anglo-American banks in crashing the global economy in 1929 and 7) the role of British and American banking and corporate elites in rearming Germany after 1933 (in violation of the Versailles Treaty).
I’ve divided this review in two halves. Part I covers history from the unification of Germany in 1871 to 1929. Part II begins with the decision by the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve to crash their respective economies in 1929.
Prior to reading Conjuring Hitler, I had no idea British Foreign Office elites were plotting as early as 1898 to decimate newly unified Germany[1] militarily, politically and economically. According to Preparata, the influential academic and politician Halford MacKinder[2] (1861-1947) was highly prone to anti-German conspiracy theories. He somehow convinced the British Foreign that a Russo-German alliance was plotting to replace the UK as the de facto global super power.
The British political establishment chose to target Germany, rather than Russia, in part because it was more accessible and in part due to grave concerns about Germany’s growing industrial strength, their heavy investments in the Middle East and their colonies in Africa (Northwest Africa, Togoland, Cameroons and Tanganyika), and the Pacific (Solomon, Marshall and Caroline Islands).
Knowing that Germany would have to be “dragged” into war (because they would never initiate a first strike), in 1904, the UK entered into strategic treaties with the countries surrounding it. They hoped to launch a short (few months) war in which Germany would be immobilized with simultaneous attacks on two fronts. France signed the first treaty in 1904, after the UK granted them sole jurisdiction over the contested colony of Morocco. In 1907, the UK signed a similar military pact with Russia, granting them jurisdiction over northern Persia and promising them Constantinople and the Bosporus Straits (following the anticipated defeat of the the Ottoman Empire [3]).
In May 1914, President Woodrow Wilson’s chief foreign advisor notified him that Britain, France and Russia were preparing to ambush Germany via a false flag event in Eastern Europe. A month later an anarchist linked to Serbian intelligence assassinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary) with the approval of the Russian government.
After Serbia rejected the Austrian ultimatum for an formal Serbian-Austrian investigation, Austria declared war and invaded Serbia in late July. After three unsuccessful attempts to negotiate an end to Russian military mobilization, Austria’s military ally Germany declared war on the Allies and invaded Belgium.
Despite their significant initial success against the French, the Germans were totally unprepared for the industrial scale warfare launched by the allies, and between 1914 and 1917 the Germans and Allies were virtually stalemated.
Beginning in 1915, Germany embarked on a conspiracy to finance (with two tons of gold) a revolutionary militia (ie the Bolsheviks) to destabilize the Russian government. In early 1917, the German government arranged for Lenin’s release from prison in Zurich and his safe passage through Germany.
In May 1917, when Czar Nicholas II (after heavy Russian losses) signaled his intention to for peace, Jack Morgan (son of J P Morgan who previously financed the February Revolution via the Red Cross War Council)[4] shifted his support from Kerensky and the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks.
According to Preparata, by April 1917 the Allies were close to defeat, and the US, facing massive financial loss in the face of British defeat,[5] agreed to enter the war.
According to a declassified State Department memorandum, after the new Bolshevik government withdraw Russian forces from the front, the Allies worried the anti-Bolshevik White Russians would ally themselves with Germany. For this reason, they opened a second front in January 1918 by invading the USSR. At the same time, Britain secretly double crossed their White Russian allies by hiring the Cossack Semenov to cut off provisions to the White Army.[6]
The book also details the torturous Versailles negotiations, resulting in the punitive war reparations imposed on the Germans.[7]
[1] In 1871 most of the German-speaking states unified as the German Empire under Emperor Wilhelm I (formerly King Wilhelm of Prussia).
[2] MacKinder is best known for the “World Island Theory” of global dominance (followed slavishly by Anglo-American policy makers to the present day), which asserts that whoever controls the “heartland” of the Eurasian land mass controls the world. See To Govern the Globe: World Orders and Catastrophic Change
[3] In August 14, the Ottoman Empire signed a secret alliance with Germany and Austria, and they entered the war with a surprise naval attack on Russia on October 14, 1914.
[4] Jacob Schiff and other Wall Street opponents of the Tsarist regime had been financing Russian revolutionary socialists since 1905. See Who Financed the Bolshevik Revolution?
[5] With a German victory, Morgan stood to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Beginning in the last quarter of 1916, the Allies were totally dependent on the US to finance the war.
[6] Wall Street financiers were still providing weapons to the Bolsheviks in early 1918.
[7] Prior to reading this book, I had no idea the US Senate refused to ratify the Versailles Treaty and that the US negotiated a separate peace treaty with Germany in 1921.
October 21, 2022
Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?
By Adam Andrzejewski After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.
On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, at 9 a.m., Dr. Anthony Fauci joined staff at the National Security Council (NSC) — the President’s national security and foreign policy advisory shop — for a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building about the novel coronavirus.
Fauci would continue to have meetings in classified settings throughout the month.
Fauci’s calendar entries included NSC meetings, White House Situation Room meetings and meetings in other classified settings, as COVID-19 was breaking in China. (To our knowledge, the existence of these meetings before Jan. 28, 2020, was not previously disclosed.)
On Friday, Jan. 24, four days after China admitted human-to-human transmission of the virus, Fauci started attending a small group COVID-19 discussion that first took place in “Anthony’s Office” in a building next to the White House. Anthony, in this case, appears to be an NSC employee and an expert in biodefense and China.
Flashing back to December 2019, when patients in Wuhan were showing up at hospitals with unidentified pneumonia cases, Fauci attended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — National Institutes of Health (NIH) dinner and workshops on Dec. 19 and 20 — the sixth annual event for NIH staff and Gates Foundation executives.
On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”
Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.
For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.
The refusal by NIH to follow open records law was a strategy to delay transparency: NIH forced us into expensive taxpayer-paid litigation to slow-walk 156 pages of semi-redacted calendar production.
Fauci’s calendar has 933 events during this five-month period — including 224 media interviews and 84 redacted events (only significant redactions that prevented analysis and understanding were counted, for example, phone number redactions were not included).
It’s a document that NIH and Fauci didn’t want you to see …
Why? What did Fauci know? And when did he know it?
Following Fauci’s timeline — highlights
Nov. 6, 2019: Fauci’s calendar lists “GPMB Discussion Note.” This likely deals with the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Fauci is a past member of the GPMB board which was formed to “ensure[s] preparedness for global health crises.”
On Jan. 27, 2020, the GPMB convened regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and Fauci signed off on the group’s Jan. 30, 2020, statement commending the WHO and the “transparency of China.”
Judicial Watch’s FOIAs uncovered that this statement was organized and circulated by Wellcome Trust scientist and GPMB member Jeremy Farrar (who also organized a secret conference call with Fauci and others on Feb. 1, 2020).
Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.
Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.
Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.
Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.
Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci has a call with his future biographer, Janet Tobias, who later produces the “FAUCI” documentary.
Dec. 3, 2019: Fauci has a call with Victor Dzau, who is the president of the National Academy of Medicine, a Duke University professor and a man whose Chinese family fled to Hong Kong to escape China’s civil war.
Dec. 19, 2019: Fauci attends an “NIH Gates Fdn dinner” at “The Cloisters,” likely the one in Lutherville, Maryland, an hour from NIH.
Earlier that morning, Bill Gates tweeted out what has become a much-discussed prediction, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”
Fauci and top officials, such as NIH director Francis Collins and Health and Human Services (HHS) assistant secretary for health Brett Giroir, joined Gates Foundation executives during the dinner and on panels the next day, according to a press report from the time.
Jan. 17, 2020: Fauci has a call to discuss “CDC Gao Writing Request.” This is presumably related to George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.
Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.
LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.
It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.
By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).
Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).
In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.
Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-calendar-before-pandemic/
New Study Blames COVID on NIH, University of North Carolina — Finds Fauci and Baric’s Fingerprints on Pandemic Bug
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. J. Jay Couey, Ph.D. Charles Rixey Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.
Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill (UNC) professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.
Aided by some $220.5 million in National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funding, Baric developed a so-called “Seamless Ligation” technique, which he boasted could perfectly conceal all evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created viruses. Baric nicknamed his invention the “no-see’m” method.
Now a new study, “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2,” published on the preprint server bioRxiv, shows that — apparently unbeknownst to Baric — the “seamless ligation” concealment gimmick leaves its own minute but legible signature.
Most momentously, these same researchers have discovered that damning signature in the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19.
Baric’s technique has long been controversial. “It’s the artist that doesn’t sign his name to the painting; the virologist that doesn’t put his signature into the virus to let us know whether or not it is emerging naturally or whether it is produced in a laboratory,” said Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, a task force that investigated the origins of COVID-19.
“All of it says, my God, there was really a big, very risky research agenda underway.”
This month, Sachs published the results of his 22-month investigation in The Lancet, including the damaging conclusion that COVID-19 was probably laboratory-generated and that the technology probably came from NIH-funded science.
Referring to Baric’s seamless ligation methodology, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein observed:
“It’s the exact opposite of what you would do if your interest was public health. Public health scientists would be marking their enhancements with red flags — not devising ways to hide them. The only reason you would want a concealer is to advance a sinister purpose — such as illegal bioweapons development — some mischief that the scientist didn’t want traceable back to his lab.”
Baric taught his “no-see’m” method to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) “Bat Lady” Shi Zhengli in 2016. In return, Baric received Chinese coronaviruses collected by Shi from bats in Yunnan province. (Scientists have linked the COVID-19 genome’s pedigree to closely related bats.)
Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute subsequently demonstrated their mastery of Baric’s high-risk technique in a series of published — and highly controversial — gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab. It has been even more puzzling to his critics that Baric, again with NIAID funding, chose to share this dangerous technique for weaponizing pathogens with Chinese scientists who have clear links to the Chinese military.
Experts say that the implications of this new study could be far-reaching. By pointing the finger at Baric, the study raises the possibility of potentially devastating liability for the NIAID and the University of North Carolina and other parties.
Scientists, including those close to Dr. Anthony Fauci, have repeatedly pointed out that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has genomic sequences that appear inconsistent with natural evolution: The COVID-19 virus is no longer infectious in bats, and its spiked protein feature — which is unknown in this family of coronavirus — includes numerous mutations that make it ideally infectious in humans.
The closest known coronavirus relative — a coronavirus from the Wuhan lab — is 96.2% identical to SARS-CoV-2. The peculiar spike accounts almost completely for the entire 3.8% difference. Oddly, there are multiple novel mutations in the spike and almost none in the rest of the genome.
Natural evolution would be expected to leave mutations distributed evenly across the genome. The fact that virtually all the mutations occur on the spike led these scientists to suspect that that particular Wuhan lab coronavirus collected by Shi Zhengli is the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 and that its new spike was implanted through engineering.
However, the unmistakable fingerprints of lab engineering were absent — leaving many experts wondering whether Baric’s technique was used to assemble a novel coronavirus with the engineered spike while removing the evidence of lab generation.
This new study connects the biological breadcrumbs that link federally funded research to a global pandemic. That trail leads directly to UNC and NIAID.
The authors of the study — a team of researchers from Duke University, University Clinics of Würzburg and an industry group — identified a characteristic signature in the amino acid code. That indelible artifact could only have emerged from Baric’s “no-see’m” methodology.
In an interview last spring, Baric himself confessed, that at the time the pandemic began, only two or three labs in the world were using his protocol – including his UNC lab and the WIV.
The study’s authors’ conclusions rest on the presence of unique sites in the COVID-19 virus. These sites allow special enzymes called “restriction enzymes” to cut the DNA into building blocks of unique size that then can be “stitched together in the correct order of the viral genome,” according to the study’s authors.
Essentially, Baric’s technique leaves behind unique spellings in the “genetic vocabulary.” The new words include “odd spelling choices” subtly distinguishing them from typical viral vocabulary.
The magic of Baric’s “no-see’m” technique is to invisibly weave these telltale “spelling” changes into the viral sequence between relevant genes without altering the viral protein. This is like changing the “spelling” of the word without changing its meaning; the casual listener will never notice the difference.
The research team used forensic tools to drill down on minute “spelling differences” in the SARS-CoV2 genome that betray laboratory tampering using the “no-see’m” technique.
Consider how a Brit would spell “colour,” “manoeuvre” or “paediatric.” The choice to spell a word in a certain way can reveal your nation of origin. Similarly, these nearly imperceptible changes in the viral sequence give away the laboratory origins of this virus.
In sharing his seamless ligation technique with Shi Zhengli, Baric assured that the WIV possessed all the required elements of the assembly process. EcoHealth Alliance’s infamous DEFUSE proposal describes the same techniques in detail. (submitted to The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, in 2018).
The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.
Prosecutors and private attorneys representing clients injured by the COVID-19 pandemic now have a smoking gun. The gun points at humanity. Forensic scientists have now successfully lifted faint but precise fingerprints from the lethal pistol’s grip and trigger. Those fingerprints belong to the NIAID and the University of North Carolina.
Baric is Fauci’s favorite gain-of-function scientist. The cascade of NIAID funding to Baric and his UNC lab has financed 152 studies approaching a quarter-billion dollars.
Those federal grants have made Baric the global kingpin of gain-of-function science. In conformance with standard practice, it is probable that UNC pockets one-quarter to one-half of NIH’s financial felicities to Baric for “administrative costs.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-pandemic-nih-unc-fauci-baric/
GOP Governors Promise Not To Mandate Covid-19 Vaccine For Children
Posted BY: Steve Watson
NWO Report
After CDC unanimously votes to add shots to the recommended vaccine schedule.
As long as I am Governor, in Florida there will not be a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for children in our schools. pic.twitter.com/oDXAj3c4Oy
— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) October 20, 2022
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee said he will ignore the CDC in favor of “personal freedom”:
I’ve always said mandates are the wrong approach, & TN has led in pushing back on federal covid vaccine requirements.
Thanks to our work with the General Assembly, TN families won’t be impacted by today’s CDC vote. We'll continue to stand for TN children & for personal freedom.
— Gov. Bill Lee (@GovBillLee) October 20, 2022
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt followed suit:
Regardless of what the CDC says, as long as I am governor, we will never force kids to get a COVID vaccine to go to school.
— Governor Kevin Stitt (@GovStitt) October 20, 2022
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey vowed to never mandate COVID shots:
Here in Alabama, the parents make decisions when it comes to their children’s health care. We do NOT mandate the covid shot for kids – nor will we ever. #alpolitics
— Governor Kay Ivey (@GovernorKayIvey) October 20, 2022
As we highlighted yesterday, Senator Rand Paul called the CDC’s decision “appalling,” urging that there is no scientific evidence that the vaccines have any advantages for children at all.
This is the same committee that approved booster vaccines for children despite no evidence that COVID boosters reduce transmission, hospitalization, or death among children. Appalling! https://t.co/KWVEM6wI7f
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 19, 2022
Paul highlighted how Moderna’s CEO admitted that booster shots are not necessary for younger people, and described the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as ‘Fauci enthusiasts’:
With even Big Pharma tempering their enthusiasm for mandating COVID vaccines on young people, will Fauci-enthusiasts at CDC still vote to mandate COVID vaxx on kids? https://t.co/dwdkAinebT
— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 19, 2022
Via https://nworeport.me/2022/10/21/gop-governors-promise-not-to-mandate-covid-19-vaccine-for-children/
GOP Will Likely Oppose More Ukraine Aid If Republicans Win House Back
Zero Hedge
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has indicated that if Republicans retake control of the House in next month’s midterm elections, the GOP will likely oppose sending more aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia, the Washington Post reports.
The US has authorized upward of $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, along with over $18.2 billion in security assistance given since January 2021. In May, the Senate voted to finalize over $40 billion in new military and humanitarian assistance – a package which many Republican lawmakers voted against. On Friday, an additional $725 million in security assistance was announced – including more ammunition for HIMARS rockets, precision-guided artillery rounds, antitank weapons and Humvees, according to the Pentagon.
“There’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically,” McCarthy told Punchbowl News. “Not doing the border, and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time, it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank check.”
McCarthys comments come days after the latest NYT/Siena college poll reveals that just 2% of likely voters think the war in Ukraine is the most important issue facing the country, while 44% think the economy and inflation are the two two issues. Of the 2% that said Ukraine, 3% voted for Biden in 2020 and 1% voted Trump.
Pushback
Notwithstanding GOP war hawks like Mitch McConnell (R-KY), McCarthy isn’t the only Republican who’s publicly opposed more Ukraine aid.
“I do think that we have to get to a point, and this is where we do disagree, we’ve got to stop the money spigot to Ukraine eventually,” said J.D. Vance, the venture capitalist and author who’s in a close race for a US Senate seat in Ohio, adding that he wants “the Ukrainians to be successful,” but not through more US funding.
“We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country,” he told ABC, adding “I think we’re at the point where we’ve given enough money in Ukraine, I really do. … The Europeans need to step up. And frankly, if the Ukrainians and the Europeans, more importantly, knew that America wasn’t going to foot the bill, they might actually step up.”
Meanwhile, Arizona Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters said in May that the money would be better spent securing the southern border with a wall.
“Under Joe Biden, it’s always America last,” he said in a video. “Let’s be clear about what this means. It means no cease-fire. It means another foreign war where we pay for everything. Many more thousands of people will die. There’s no resolution, no end in sight. The risk of course is that a proxy war can escalate into an all-out nuclear war between nuclear powers.”
In New Hampshire, Republican Senate candidate Don Bolduc said last week that more spending is not the answer to improving conditions in Ukraine.
“We must hold the administration accountable,” he told New Hampshire’s ABC affiliate. “We just can’t print this money. It’s money we don’t have, and it’s equipment that’s being thrown at a problem without any strategy, without any policy, and it’s not going to get the job done.”
These Republicans could join Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who in May temporarily held up $40 billion of aid to Ukraine, saying, “you can’t save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”
Nevada Republican Senate nominee Adam Laxalt tweeted in May that the $40 billion U.S. aid to Ukraine was a “shockingly abhorrent proposal.” -WaPo
Feds Sued for Withholding Records on JFK Assassination
(AP Photo/Jim Altgens)Courthouse News Service
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — San Francisco Bay Area researchers sued President Joe Biden and the National Archives on Wednesday over the postponement of the release of records on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
Two members of the Mary Ferrell Foundation claim in their federal lawsuit that the Biden administration has postponed releasing certain records on Kennedy’s assassination without doing a review of the records or maintaining an accurate index of the redacted content. They say the National Archives and Records Administration violated the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 by preventing them from being fully informed on the history of the assassination.
The foundation, based in Massachusetts, maintains the largest searchable electronic collection of materials on the JFK assassination. Plaintiffs Josiah Thompson, a private investigator and author of books and articles on the JFK assassination, and author Gary Aguilar claim the government’s obstruction has interfered with the foundation’s core mission to educate the public.
According to the plaintiffs, Biden’s postponement of the records release deprives them from their legal right to information on the assassination. They also say the president and National Archives make it impossible to determine the number and identity of redacted and withheld assassination records in the JFK Collection — or records that may be in other government offices.
As a result of pressure to end what was then three decades of government secrecy about Kennedy’s death, Congress unanimously enacted the JFK Records Act in 1992, signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush on Oct. 26, 1992. Congress declared that the “legislation is necessary to create an enforceable, independent, and accountable process for the public disclosure of such [assassination] records.”
Just before the October 2017 statutory deadline to put out the remaining secret assassination records, then-President Donald Trump issued a memorandum instructing National Archives to temporarily postpone the public disclosure of some unidentified records for six months. He later ordered National Archives to postpone the release for another three and a half years beyond the statutory deadline.
In October 2021, Biden issued an executive memorandum ordering the continued postponement of release of an unknown number of unidentified records — without, according to the plaintiffs, conducting a record-by-record review. They claim in doing so, the president breached his duties by not giving reasons with evidence for postponement, or stating how withholding the records outweighs the public interest in having the records.
The plaintiffs also say National Archives acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and violated the Administrative Procedures Act by implementing Biden’s orders, and failed to perform assigned duties under the JFK Records Act such as maintaining an accurate guidebook and index to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. They also claim National Archives failed to follow up with government offices on outstanding record searches requested in 1998.
The plaintiffs want a judge to declare that Biden’s postponement violates the JFK Records Act and to order the president and National Archives to explain their continued postponement for each withheld record with clear evidence of “identifiable harm posed by the potential disclosure” and how it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
“If the court finds that the proposed grounds for postponement do not meet the statutory criteria. the court should order the release of such assassination records to the American people,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint.
The plaintiffs also want National Archives ordered to complete a search for other records without identification in the department’s directory, remove all unjustified redactions in the central directory and find missing records identified in the complaint. They also want the agency to verify that there are no additional records withheld in full, and to establish a procedure to ensure the public release of all records “at the earliest possible date.”
[…]
Via https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-sued-for-withholding-records-on-jfk-assassination/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
