Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 503
October 16, 2022
Changes in Red Cross Blood Screening Procedures
Simay BTrial Site NewsChanges in the medical screening practices of the Red Cross for blood donor eligibility have been observed. The questionnaires now include the record of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The medication deferral list includes the experimental vaccines as they may affect a person’s eligibility to donate blood. When the pandemic began in 2020, the Red Cross began testing blood donors for COVID-19 antibodies but they have completely stopped the procedure and now focus on vaccines.
A person who would like to donate blood to the Red Cross needs to read and answer a list of questions to find out if they are eligible. The Red Cross assures the public that donors who received COVID-19 shots can still give blood as long as they are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of donation. However, under the eligibility guidelines applied to vaccine recipients, a donor needs to provide the name of the manufacturer of the vaccine received to determine the deferral time to be implemented.
A Need for a Greater Blood SupplyChallenges in the blood supply were already present even before the emergence of COVID-19. The pandemic brought about a crisis for blood services as the spread of infection caused cancellations of blood drives. In 2022, the number of weekly cases has continued to decrease, and local governments have started to loosen public health restrictions. The worst part of the pandemic appears to have passed, but crises in the blood supply have not ended.
The concern about blood availability is not due to increased demand for transfusion, but because of the decline in supply due to reduced donations. As a result of the unprecedented blood supply shortage, hospitals are forced to delay or reschedule surgeries. To prevent these problems, the Red Cross continues to encourage the public to donate blood.
COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood DonationThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) to Pfizer-BioNTech on December 11, 2020. Since then, different varieties of vaccines have been developed against COVID-19 such as messenger RNA (mRNA), vector vaccine, and protein subunit vaccine. As of October 1, 2022, about 68% of the world’s population has received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
With the majority of the population receiving jabs, the screening process for blood now includes the donors’ vaccination status. As part of the Red Cross screening process, the blood donor is asked a series of personal questions to ensure that it is safe for patients to receive their blood and that it is safe for the donor to give blood on the appointed day.
On March 17, 2020, Gail McGovern, president and chief executive officer of the American Red Cross reassured the public that “blood donation is a safe process, and that we have put additional precautions in place at our drive drives.”
Eligibility Guidelines Concerning COVID ShotsTen organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), FDA, and Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), released various recommendations on the deferral periods for blood donors who had received COVID-19 vaccine. The deferral periods range from zero to 28 days, depending on whether the donor received a live or inactivated vaccine.
Among these organizations, the Red Cross follows the eligibility guidelines set by the FDA. Updated information for blood establishments regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and blood donation was released by the FDA on January 11, 2022. It suggests that individuals who received a nonreplicating, inactivated, or mRNA-based vaccine can give blood without a waiting period, and there’s a short waiting period (e.g., 14 days) for donors who received a live-attenuated shot. As a response to these requirements, the Red Cross released the COVID-19 Vaccine & Booster Blood Donation Guide for Donors where the donor is expected to report the name of the vaccine manufacturer during the screening process.
Concerns for the Blood RecipientsThere are significant differences in the public’s acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, and this has also affected the acceptance of blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors. Some patients refuse blood transfusions and demand physicians to disclose details of the donor, including whether the donor received a COVID-19 vaccine.
As reported in TrialSite, there are concerns about why vaccinated individuals are allowed to donate blood within two weeks after receiving the shot if the spike proteins circulate in the body for up to a month after mRNA vaccination. A study by the Stanford University Department of Pathology revealed that the blood of Pfizer vaccine recipients contains at least as much spike protein as unvaccinated individuals who were infected by the virus.
The Australian Red Cross advises donors to wait three days after receiving each jab before donating blood, plasma, or platelets regardless of the type of vaccine received because of the possible side effects such as mild fever.
Antibody Testing for Blood DonorsIn the early period of the pandemic, the Red Cross tested all blood, platelet, and plasma donations for COVID-19 antibodies. The result helped inform the donors whether they have been exposed to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS Cov-2), the virus that carries COVID-19.
The antibody test was authorized by the FDA and helped indicate if the donor’s immune system had produced antibodies to the coronavirus, regardless of the development of symptoms. It was implemented for a limited time from June 15 – 30, 2020. They discontinued the program when infection rates decreased and new treatment options became available.
A positive result from the antibody test does not confirm infection or immunity, as it only indicates potential exposure to the virus.
Are We Repeating History?Blood transfusion is one of the most frequently performed medical procedures, yet this practice has historically been mired in controversy such as when African-Americans were banned from donating blood during World War II. This was followed by a lifetime ban on blood donations on men who had sex with men (MSM) during the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. During the mid-twentieth century, the U.S. National Blood Program encouraged blood donation and ensured that gender, race, and sexuality would not influence the transfusion process.
Practices in blood donation have improved, but the societal views of it remain controversial. The issues surrounding COVID-19 vaccines have led some patients to get worried about becoming infected with COVID-19 or developing long-term effects from the vaccine itself.
[…]
Via https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/changes-in-red-cross-blood-screening-procedures-469a8014
Kaiser Permanente Sued For Wrongful Death After California Husband’s Remdesivir Treatment Fails
Zero Hedge
Authored by Juliette Fairley via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Before Rodney Briones’ physicians at Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center in California treated him with Remdesivir, they allegedly did not disclose the risks to him or to his wife, Christina, and did not obtain informed consent, according to a complaint filed by the Briones family.
The couple had gone to the managed care consortium for help after Rodney developed COVID-19 symptoms and tested positive twice for SARS-CoV-2.
A five-day course of treatment with the controversial drug and other allegedly contraindicated, high-risk medications allegedly led to kidney failure for the 50-year-old Briones, who was subsequently placed on a ventilator. During this time, Kaiser Riverside reportedly refused to allow the man’s wife or family to see him. He died on Sept. 12.
“My husband was murdered because of government [expletive],” Christina Briones told The Epoch Times. “I never thought this could happen.”
Kaiser Permanente and Gilead Sciences, the maker of Remdesivir, did not respond to requests for comment.
The grieving wife sued Kaiser in Riverside Superior Court alleging the wrongful death of her husband due to hospital protocol that included administering Remdesvir, which, according to the lawsuit, is a failed Ebola drug that was found to be terminally toxic to the kidneys. The drug was pulled from an Ebola study because more than 53 percent of Remdesivir recipients died, the lawsuit states.
“The Kaiser Riverside physician did not disclose the availability of highly effective Safe Multi-Drug Early Treatment (SMDET) to Rodney when both Rodney and a reasonable patient in Rodney’s position would have wanted the disclosure,” wrote the Briones family attorney Matthew Tyson in the Sept. 7 complaint. “This was constructive fraud.”
The Briones family seeks survivor action general damages as well as wrongful death general and special damages.
“We pioneered Remdesivir wrongful death litigation using a constructive fraud theory, and we filed the very first Remdesivir wrongful death lawsuit in the country, back in June, for Evangeline Ortega,” said Tyson, who is working with Attorney Brian Garrie on multiple Remdesivir lawsuits.
[…]
Japan: Geography and Early Cultures
Episode 26: Japan – Geography and Early Cultures
Foundations of Eastern Civilization
Dr Craig Benjamin (2013)
Film Review
This introduction to ancient Japanese civilization begins with a discussion of its geography, climate and early archeological record.
The 1,500 mile-long archipelago of Japan consists of four main islands and thousands of smaller ones. It’s climate ranges from chilly temperate in the north to subtropical in the south. Owing to its relative isolation from the Asian continent, it successfully resisted two attempted Mongol invasions and was of no interest to expansionist Chinese emperors.
Owing to its location in the Pacific “ring of fire,” it is very tectonically active with frequent earthquakes and occasional volcanic eruptions. Its rugged mountain ranges are still quite young and unsuitable for farming. However its narrow coastal plains (comprising 13% of Japan’s total area) are have very fertile volcanic soils, with plentiful fresh water (from snow melt and a long growing season. This is where Japan’s first farmers settled.
Archeologists have found stone tools dating from 400,000 years ago, left (they believe)r hominid ancestors (most likely Homo erectus).
The first Homo sapiens appear to have crossed a land bridge from the Asian continent during the last Ice Age (between 35,000 and 50,000 BC). They were most likely following ancient mega fauna (bison, elk and elephant).
According to their remains, Japan’s Paleolithic humans were affluent foragers, owing to plentiful fish, forest products and boar and deer that crossed the land bridge from either China or Korea. Tools they left behind include arrows, traps, nets with sinkers, canoes. They lived in semi-permanent villages, traded between islands and domesticated dogs. Some of them left sculpted stones (20,000 – 10,000 BC) shaped like human beings. Around 12,0000 BC, they also developed the world’s first (Jomon) pottery made of baked clay around 12,000 BC.
The first evidence of agriculture (cultivation of rice and millet) dates from around 5,000 BC, along with the first full scale villages and large communal store houses. Bronze appeared in Japan around 300 BC, among the Yayoi culture. Genetically distinct from the Jomon, they are believed to have immigrated from Korea.
Wet rice farming was introduced to Japan during the early Yayoi period. By the seventh century AD, it had spread throughout Japan. More productive than dry rice farming, this enabled the accumulation of surpluses and the emergence of class society.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/5808608/5808663
October 15, 2022
A Big Picture Look at the Disastrous Public Health Response to COVID-19
By Carla Peters and David Bell
Brownstone Institute
An underlying principle of public health is, or was, to provide the public with accurate information so that they can make good health choices for themselves and their community.
The past 3 years have seen this paradigm turned on its head, with the public’s money being used to deceive and coerce them, forcing them to follow public health dictates. The public has funded their own incarceration and impoverishment through their taxes, with public funds driving the unprecedented nonpharmaceutical, and then pharmaceutical, response to a virus that kills mainly old sick people near the end of their lives.
Children have had their education downgraded, and economies have been mangled, ensuring future generations will also pay. So, what did the public actually pay for?
COVID-19 was not novel, but a variation on previous respiratory disease.Most healthy people infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover without any intervention, gaining natural immunity which, in the absence of vaccination, generates a more robust and long-lasting protection with less risk for reinfections as compared to individuals protected by vaccination alone. Globally, the infection fatality rate (IFR) of SARS-CoV-2 is about 0.15% and comparable to seasonal influenza (IFR 0,1 %). The IFR of those under twenty years was only 0.0013 %, and highest for those beyond 70 years. The IFR of COVID-19 among community-dwelling elderly is lower than previously reported in elderly overall.
A higher IFR was found in countries with many long-term care facilities, perhaps because exposure tends to occur through other immune-suppressed elderly, rather than immune-competent children with lower viral loads. An aging population goes through the process of immunosenescence and increased incidence and severity of infectious diseases is expected.
Severe COVID-19, or COVID-19 Associated ARDS, is a syndrome within the known ARDS spectrum. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and associated cytokine storm has been recognized for more than 50 years. It occurs when a diverse array of triggers causes acute, bilateral pulmonary inflammation and increased capillary permeability leading to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Although supportive care improved the prognosis, mortality and disabling complications in survivors in intensive care are still high, and have remained relatively unchanged in the last 20 years. In 2013 an estimated 2.65 million deaths worldwide were attributed to Acute Respiratory Tract Infection.
As with other ARDS etiologies, people suffering from (COVID-19) ARDS are mostly elderly people with comorbidities including being overweight, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, often using multiple medications. Other restrictions on the immune system, such as vitamin D deficiency, put people at increased risk.
As of July 2022, WHO reported over 601 million confirmed cases and over 6.4 million deaths associated with COVID-19 globally. More than half (3.5 million) died after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, though 67.7 % of the world population has received at least one vaccination. The WHO estimates a total of 14.9 million excess deaths in 2020-2021 associated with COVID-19 directly due to the disease or indirectly due to the impact of the public health response on health systems and society.
Footing the bill for the disposal of orthodox public healthSince COVID-19 was recognized in Western countries in early 2020, expenditures on public health in many of them have more than doubled, imposing over $500 billion in monthly costs on the global economy. Some trillions more have been spent on compensation and stimulus packages for those left without income due to the public health response, whilst economies, and therefore future employment opportunities, have been heavily damaged. This is nearly all funded by taxpayers, or borrowed to be funded with interest by the taxpayers of the future.
Politicians and various experts have claimed that the coercive COVID-19 public health policies are the only way to curb COVID-19, though such measures were advised against by the WHO in its pandemic influenza guidelines of 2019. They would increase poverty and inequality, whilst having (still) unproven efficacy.
Citizens have paid the bill via taxes for novel nonpharmaceutical interventions (lockdowns, mask mandates and frequent testing) and repeated vaccinations of immune people with rapidly waning vaccines, whilst seeing their own incomes reduced. The increase in the money supply to cover relief for forced unemployment has driven inflation, contributing to increased food, water, energy, health and insurance costs. These responses have disproportionately harmed low income families.
Governments take over medical management
Early in the pandemic it became clear that intubating a COVID-19 patient could increase long-term harm and mortality. Unfortunately, many hospitals continued a low threshold for the use of ventilators for the fear that other methods of oxygenation would spread the virus. In 2020 the US spent billions of dollars stockpiling unused ventilators.
In many countries a relatively new antiviral drug, remdesivir, developed with State funding, became the first choice of treatment for hospitalized people with COVID-19. The safety and toxicity of the expensive remdesivir was widely disputed. Yet even after the first results of the WHO’s Solidarity study found little or no effect on reducing hospital stay or Covid deaths, the EU continued a €1.2 billion agreement with Gilead for 500,000 treatments and it continued to be prioritized for use in the United States.
Final results of the Solidarity study confirmed the finding of little or no effect. In contrast, the use of cheaper drugs with antiviral activity, like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, was suppressed. Although ivermectin is now included in lists of the US National Institutes of Health in August 2022, governments are silent on its use, preferring to transfer funds to Pharma for newer on-patent drugs.
Expanding lockdowns from prisons to society
Lockdowns may prove to be one of the gravest governmental failures of modern times. A cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 found lockdowns to be far more harmful to public health (at least 5-10 times) in terms of well-being than COVID-19. Significant collateral damage is not unexpected, as mass business closures and restricted movement have affected billions of people globally through poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, educational interruption, and interrupted healthcare. What did not make media headlines is the more than 3 million children who have died from malnutrition in the first year of the pandemic. Together with increasing malnutrition, the world is facing rising burdens of child marriage and child labor, developmental and mental problems, poverty, suicide and chronic disease.
[…]
Scientists Sound Alarm as Gates, WEF Promote Gene-Editing Technology for Everything From Fake Meat to Designer Babies
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum are among the biggest promoters of CRISPR, a recently developed gene-editing technology, but scientists interviewed by The Defender warned about the technology’s flaws and risks.
CRISPR, a recently developed gene-editing technology is promoted as a potential solution to numerous diseases, to food security and climate change — even as a way to deliver “designer babies” and bring extinct mammals back to life.
The technology has attracted significant investments and the attention of actors such as Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
But many scientists express concerns about the technology’s potential harmful effects.
In interviews with The Defender, Dr. Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London, and Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, provided insights into the flaws of this technology, its potential consequences and the risks associated with not regulating it sufficiently.
What is CRISPR?
CRISPR — which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats — acts as a “precise pair of molecular scissors that can cut a target DNA sequence, directed by a customizable guide.”
Put differently, this technology allows scientists to edit sections of DNA by “snipping” specific portions of it and replacing it with new segments. Gene editing is not a new concept, but CRISPR technology is viewed as being cheaper and more accurate.
This stems from the 2012 discovery that RNA can guide a Cas protein nuclease to any targeted DNA sequence, and to (theoretically) target only that one specific sequence. Indeed, CRISPR technology is often referred to as CRISPR-Cas9 for this reason.
The Media and many scientists have expressed optimism about the technology.
Medlineplus.gov, for instance, said CRISPR “has generated a lot of excitement in the scientific community because it is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than other genome editing methods.”
Wired, in 2015, described CRISPR as “revolutionary,” writing that it had “already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS.”
The technology also made wheat “invulnerable to killer fungi,” and altered yeast DNA “so that it consumes plant matter and excretes ethanol,” according to Wired.
In the same article, Wired wrote that “Technical details aside, CRISPR-Cas9 makes it easy, cheap, and fast to move genes around — any genes, in any living thing, from bacteria to people.”
A scientist quoted in the story added, “These are monumental moments in the history of biomedical research.”
Bloomberg, in 2016, said CRISPR will “change the world,” quoting scientist Andrew May of Caribou Biosciences, who described CRISPR as “potentially, a cheap and quick way to fix anything about a genetic code” and “almost as fundamental as the transistor.”
The discovery of CRISPR’s gene-editing applications was viewed as so significant that two scientists, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, even as a patent dispute between Doudna and another scientist, Feng Zhang — also viewed as instrumental in CRISPR’s development — continues to this day.
Other scientists, though, do not share the same optimism about CRISPR.
A ‘genetic modification procedure’ that is ‘not precise’ and ‘not breeding’
Robinson told The Defender that “in general terms, CRISPR is a gene-editing tool” that “cuts the DNA across the double strand” and can be targeted “to a precise sequence in the genome.”
CRISPR can be used with three potential aims, Robinson said: disrupting the function of a gene, modifying the function of a gene or inserting entirely new genes.
According to Antoniou, “Gene editing has been around … for far longer than the CRISPR-Cas9 system has been. It’s been around for decades.”
Antoniou described gene editing as:
“A DNA manipulation method or methods with which the intended outcome is to make a very targeted change in the genetic material of the organism, which could be anything from a bacterium, a plant, animal or human.
“Gene editing, I guess the operative word here is editing, which implies an alteration in a very precise, targeted way. You’re trying to make a very specific alteration in the genetic material of your target organism.”
Robinson said that while CRISPR is said to be site-specific, it is actually “sequence-specific … it will look for that particular sequence and cut the DNA at that point.” This has led many to tout CRISPR’s “precision breeding” ability.
For Antoniou though, “It is clearly a genetic modification procedure. It is not precise and it’s not breeding.”
Gene editing is often confused with gene therapy, but Antoniou said they are two different things. With gene therapy, a “normal functioning copy” of a gene is added to existing cells, he said.
However, he added, “With gene editing, you’re not adding another gene. You’re trying to alter a gene that’s already there in the DNA, in order to either correct the defective gene directly or alter some other gene function that compensates for the defective gene function in the patients.”
Designer humans ‘no longer science fiction’
Doudna, in a 2015 TED Talk, described genetic engineering as the “future” of human evolution, even touting CRISPR’s potential applications in creating “enhanced” or “designer” human beings and declaring this is no longer science fiction.
She said:
“Many scientists believe that genetic engineering is the future of our evolution. It provides us with a chance to give ourselves any traits we want, such as muscle mass or eye color.
“Imagine that we could try to engineer humans that have enhanced properties such as stronger bones or less susceptibility to cardiovascular disease, or even to have properties that we would consider maybe to be desirable like different eye color or to be taller … Designer humans, if you will. Geo-engineered humans are not with us yet. But this is no longer science fiction.”
Others in the scientific community expressed similar techno-utopianism. For instance, Wired wrote that CRISPR could deliver anything from designer babies to species-specific bioweapons.
In 2018, for instance, a Chinese biophysicist announced that he and his team created the world’s first gene-edited babies.
An article last month in The Intercept noted that the CIA has invested in a biotechnology startup, Colossal Biosciences — along with Peter Thiel, Paris Hilton and Tony Robbins — that aims to use CRISPR technology to “jumpstart nature’s ancestral heartbeat” by resurrecting extinct mammals, even the woolly mammoth.
[…]
[Ed – one of the main objectives of the bioeconomy executive order Biden signed last month is to reduce “regulation” on these technologies, ie allow them to be marketed with minimal human testing for safety and effectiveness. See https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/10/biden-issues-executive-order-promoting-agriculture-and-food-biotechnology/%5D
Voodoo Vaccine
Todd Hayen
OffGuardian
Voodoo Vaccine” seemed like a catchy title, but a more apt title for this article would be something like, “How the Covid Vaccine is More Like Superstition Than Science.”
Voodoo has a superstition basis, so this title works as well. So, what is voodoo, or superstition, and how is the Covid vaccine, its reverence, its effect, the fear that it is supposed to assuage and the relationship between the people pushing it, and the people taking it superstitious?
The word around town is that the fancy named third booster, the Bivalent booster for BA.4 and BA.5, is not being received all that well. There is also a “third shot” that is different than the “third booster”—don’t ask me how, but apparently is best taken by those who are immunocompromised.
For a virus that is rumored not even to exist, and/or been accurately isolated, they sure do know details about the pesky little thing.
I am no scientist (woo hoo) so obviously I cannot comment on the genius minds that put all this stuff together, but gosh dang it is like stuff you’d see a wizard do, it is so complicated and magical.
That comment is probably closer to the truth than not. Now, I am sure the minds that put all this together are indeed brilliant. And I am sure there is a boatload of science in all of this.
But hell, the damn things don’t even work, and they sure as hell are dangerous (if you talk to the right people) so why are so many people taking them, one after the other?
Yes, it is true the mad fervor for the latest jab is waning. But a lot of people are still yakking on Facebook about getting them, “I have an appointment to get the latest super booster! I am so excited!” “Me too!! Yahoo!!”
And of course there is a plethora of arm selfies with two, not one, little round Band-Aids covering the booster entry as well as the annual flu jab. Yahoo indeed! Double your money folks!
It reminds me of the good ol’ days when teenaged girls were blubbering on their pink princess phones about some current heartthrob they got an autographed picture from. Screams and giggles.
What is this crap?
The people that seem totally mesmerized by all of this and are frantic to get in line for the latest jab are the true believers. But I think there are still many who would act the same if the propaganda machine starting spitting out the usual hockey-poo.
I have a very close shrew friend who is a freedom fighter. He says Covid is dead, that even if the authorities scared the bejesus out of the general public again, few would take any new poke they laid on us.
I’m not so sure.
Actually, how much do any of us know these days about stuff we put into our body to ward off the evil spirits of disease? With all the science out there, who in the common pool of educated human beings really know the scientific mechanism of pharmaceuticals, or even anything about the diseases they treat?
Not me, said the flea. So for the most part we are relying on hocus-pocus at best.
Yeah, the guy/gal in the white coat said it works, so what the hell. I just know if I refused it because of some remote chance there was an unpleasant side effect that would get me, I would be worried all day and night about the boogey man it was supposed to ward off. Better just take the meds.
Doesn’t a rabbit’s foot do the same thing, ward off boogey men? Oh, right, but that isn’t science. The medicine is science. Right…science.
People have been taking antidepressants for years believing in the science and the white coat wizard writing the prescription. And look where that got us.
Hey, I have nothing against lucky charms. But if you are going to rely on that stuff pick a charm that doesn’t cause any harm. I don’t think a rabbit’s foot has side effects, antidepressants do.
But I digress. Let’s talk about voodoo.
Voodoo is a specialized form of science, oops, I mean religion, that is practiced in a variety of locations around the world. Known primarily in Africa and parts of the Caribbean and South America (as well as the southern USA), it relies on a lot of strange (to a non-voodooer) rituals and practices.
It would be safe to say that the custom of voodoo relies heavily on superstition—defined usually as an “irrational” belief. I would refine that a bit and leave the “irrational” out of it and just say superstition is a belief that is usually found outside the realm of materiality.
So what does that mean?
Well, I would venture to say that taking a vaccine that has shown to do very little of what it is trumped up to do and is in fact quite dangerous at the same time it is touted to be “safe and effective,” borders on superstition. And it certainly is treated by the people taking it as having magical powers. Very few vaccinated folks know how it does what it is supposed to do, even in a very elementary way.
Fewer still are adequately informed about its safety and efficacy (isn’t that called “informed consent”?). Yet it is gobbled up like cotton candy on a hot afternoon at the county fair.
If people just took it and shut up about it that would be one thing. But they don’t. They dance about it, sing about it, give high fives about it, take pictures of it, dream about it, maybe even have orgasms about it (I wouldn’t be surprised).
It is the thing to do, like having a Pet Rock in the ‘70s. This is voodoo.
[…]
Via https://off-guardian.org/2022/10/15/voodoo-vaccine/
October 14, 2022
‘Stop the Money, Stop the Madness’: Time to Ban Risky Gain-of-Function Experiments
By Dr. Joseph Mercola Despite EcoHealth Alliance’s shady history and potential role in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci just gave EcoHealth another $3.3 million in additional funding for dangerous gain-of-function research.
Story at a glance:
EcoHealth Alliance was a key participant in risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China, which is now suspected of having played a role in the creation of SARS-CoV-2. That research was funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).Despite EcoHealth’s shady history and potential role in the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci, before leaving office, is now giving EcoHealth another $3.3 million in additional funding.The NIAID has approved a $653,392 EcoHealth grant to analyze “the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam.” That sum is for the first year of a five-year project, so the total funding comes out to about $3.3 million.In addition to collecting and cataloging novel bat coronaviruses, EcoHealth will also “rapidly supply viral sequences and isolates for use in vaccine and therapeutic development, including ‘prototype pathogen’ vaccines.”Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst has introduced the “Defund EcoHealth Alliance Act,” which specifies that “No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law may be made available for any purpose to EcoHealth Alliance Inc, including any subsidiaries and related organizations that are directly controlled by EcoHealth Alliance Inc.” This does not go far enough, however, as there are many others that would simply take their place. What we need is a ban on dual-use, gain-of-function research.EcoHealth Alliance has received quite a bit of notoriety over the past three years as a key participant in risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China, funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci at the NIAID.
EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak was one of the 15 co-authors of the 2015 paper, “SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronavirus Pose Threat for Human Emergence,” which biowarfare expert Francis Boyle claims is “the smoking gun” that reveals the culprits responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
EcoHealth is also linked to U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine by way of Nathan Wolfe, a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader graduate, who has been on EcoHealth’s editorial board since 2004.
Wolf is the founder of Metabiota, now implicated in the operation of biolabs in Ukraine that Russia claims have been conducting secret bioweapons research.
Many articles have been written detailing EcoHealth’s suspected role in the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) funding of its risky gain-of-function research, yet despite that, Fauci, before leaving office, is now giving EcoHealth another $3.3 million in additional funding.
To understand just how outrageous this is, let’s review some of what we know about EcoHealth and its research history.
EcoHealth has a long history of risky research
In a March 31 investigative report, Vanity Fair contributor Katherine Eban reviewed the contents of more than 100,000 EcoHealth Alliance documents, including meeting minutes and internal emails and reports, most of which predate the COVID-19 pandemic, showing a disturbing reality of “murky grant agreements, flimsy NIH oversight and pursuit of government grants by pitching increasingly risky global research.”
Records show EcoHealth received a $3.7 million NIAID grant in 2014 to study the risk of bat coronavirus emergence and the potential for outbreaks in human populations. Nearly $600,000 of that went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which was a key collaborator.
Warning bells started ringing in 2016, when EcoHealth failed to submit its annual progress report. NIAID threatened to withhold funds until the report was filed, and when Daszak finally submitted it, grant specialists found cause for concern.
According to the report, Daszak and his collaborators were seeking to create an infectious clone of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a novel coronavirus with a 35% mortality rate. To that end, they constructed two chimeric coronaviruses that were similar to SARS, the virus responsible for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.
The report prompted NIH grant specialists to ask whether the work should be subject to the federal moratorium on gain-of-function research on influenza, SARS and MERS viruses, which had been in place since October 2014.
NIH and EcoHealth circumvented moratorium rules
The moratorium had some loopholes, however, which Daszak exploited to continue his research. In a June 2016 response to the grant specialists, Daszak claimed the SARS-like chimeras they’d constructed were exempt from the moratorium because the viral strains used were not known to infect humans.
[…]
A clear case of regulatory failure
Considering the rationale for the research was that these pathogens could potentially cause a pandemic, Daszak’s claim that the research posed no such risk is rather contradictory.
[…]
Whatever the truth of that might be, what’s clear is that the NIH accepted EcoHealth’s proposal to circumvent gain-of-function rules.
[..]
Why is Fauci now funding EcoHealth again?
With that backstory in mind — and that’s just one story raising questions about EcoHealth’s research ethics and role in the COVID-19 pandemic — why is Fauci now flooding EcoHealth with fresh funds?
[…]
Predictive pandemic planning is a fantasy
The rationale behind the hunt for novel zoonotic viruses is that it will help researchers prepare against future pandemic threats. But looking at the volumes of papers published on coronaviruses, including chimeric coronaviruses suspected of being precursors to SARS-CoV-2, it’s clear that none of it helped prevent a global pandemic.
On the contrary, the evidence seems to point to the COVID-19 pandemic being the result of such research. So, why is the NIH still funding the very organization that gave money to and worked with the very lab the whole world now suspects might be the source of the COVID-19 pandemic?
[…]
We really need to ban all gain-of-function research
As detailed in “The COVID Rabbit Hole: An Inside Look at the Virus’ Origin,” evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being the result of a lab leak, and that Fauci, Daszak and other researchers, China, the mainstream media, the World Health Organization and tech companies have all worked together to cover it up.
“All so-called biodefense research is biowarfare research. There’s no hard line separating the two. Hence the term ‘dual use’ research. What we need is a ban on dual use gain of function research, i.e., research in which a pathogen is equipped with new functions that makes it more dangerous, which could be used for good or ill.”
COVID-19 would not be the first infectious outbreak caused by a lab leak, and it surely won’t be the last — if we continue to allow mad scientists to continue this kind of work, that is. It’s important to realize that all so-called biodefense research is biowarfare research. There’s no hard line separating the two.
[…]
What we really need is a ban on dual-use, gain-of-function research, i.e., research in which a pathogen is equipped with new functions that makes it more dangerous, which could be used for good or ill. We simply do not need this kind of research. It’s all offensive, as it hasn’t prevented a single epidemic or pandemic to date.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gain-of-function-research-funding-cola/
The Era of Cheap Food and Cheap Gasoline is Over
By Michael Snyder
All of our lifestyles are about to change in a major way, but the vast majority of the population still does not understand what is coming. Throughout our entire lives, we have always been able to depend on a couple of things. There would always be cheap gasoline to fuel our vehicles and there would always be mountains of cheap food at the grocery store. No matter who was in the White House and no matter what else was going on in the world, those two things always remained the same. Unfortunately, those days are now over and they aren’t coming back.
We have entered the greatest energy crisis that any of us have ever experienced, and it isn’t going to go away any time soon.
So you might as well get used to high gas prices. Earlier this month, brand new all-time record highs were set all over southern California…
Los Angeles-Long Beach – $6.46 (Record high)Orange County – $6.42 (Record high Saturday)Ventura County – $6.40Riverside County – $6.33 (Record high)San Bernardino County $6.32But that isn’t the real problem.
The real problem is with natural gas.
Thanks to the war in Ukraine, supplies of natural gas in Europe have become extremely tight, and this has pushed prices into the stratosphere.
Needless to say, this is going to greatly affect food productions in the months ahead. According to Bloomberg, over two-thirds of all fertilizer production capacity in Europe has already been shut down due to soaring natural gas costs…
Europe’s fertilizer crunch is deepening with more than two-thirds of production capacity halted by soaring gas costs, threatening farmers and consumers far beyond the region’s borders.
This is an absolutely massive story, but hardly anyone in the United States is covering it.
Global fertilizer production is going to be greatly reduced, and that is going to have very serious implications for agricultural production all over the world…
“Nitrogen plant shutdowns in Europe are not simply a problem in Europe,” she said. “Reduced supply on the scale seen this week not only raises the marginal cost of production of nitrogen fertilizers, but will also tighten the global market, putting pressure on plant nutrients’ availability in Europe and beyond.”
We’re already seeing prices elsewhere rise again. The price of the common nitrogen fertilizer urea in New Orleans rose over 20% in weekly prices Friday, the most since March, a few weeks after the war began, according to Green Markets.
I know that fertilizer may not be the most exciting topic for a lot of people, but the truth is that approximately half the global population would starve if we didn’t have any…
In fact, it’s estimated that nitrogen fertilizer now supports approximately half of the global population. In other words, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch — the pioneers of this technological breakthrough — are estimated to have enabled the lives of several billion people, who otherwise would have died prematurely, or never been born at all.
Let that paragraph sink in for a moment.
The only way we can even come close to feeding everyone on the planet is by using vast quantities of fertilizer, but now fertilizer plants all over Europe are being forced to shut down because of the price of natural gas.
As long as this global energy crisis persists, the global food crisis will also persist.
Russia is normally the largest exporter of natural gas in the entire world, and an end to the war in Ukraine would go a long way toward solving our current problems.
But there isn’t going to be an end to the war in Ukraine.
Once again, western leaders are assuring us that the war will not end until Russia is forced out of every inch of Ukrainian territory.
That includes Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.
Of course the Russians would use tactical nukes long before we ever get to that point.
And once the Russians use tactical nukes, the west will do the same.
As it currently stands, there is no “off ramp” for this war.
Instead, we are simply counting down the days until it goes nuclear.
I am sorry to tell you that, but it is the truth.
If the American people truly understood what was at stake, there would be massive peace protests all over the nation right now.
Meanwhile, the worst multi-year megadrought in 1,200 years continues to absolutely ravage agricultural production in the western half of the United States.
A reporter from FOX recently visited the cornfields of Wayne County, Nebraska and what he discovered is extremely chilling…
“I’m standing in the middle of a cornfield that, if this was a normal year or in other words, if the corn was growing the way it was supposed to be, you wouldn’t even really be able to see me right now,” FOX Business’ Connell McShane reported from Wakefield, Nebraska. “It would be way up above my head. But now I look at this, maybe knee-high at best.”
McShane visited field after field in Wayne County and found the same short stalks with very sparse ears. Over 99% of that county is in exceptional drought.
This drought has been going on for years and years.
And it just keeps getting worse.
On the west coast, we are being warned that production of tomatoes, garlic and onions will be very disappointing this year due to the drought.
As a result, prices are going to go much higher in 2023…
In addition to tomatoes, other crops like garlic and onion are also expected to be impacted.
“What you’re seeing harvested this summer that really hasn’t even hit the grocery shelf is a 25% increase in the cost of the product to the processors — the canners, the buyers downstream,” California State Board of Food and Agriculture President Don Cameron told Reuters. “The onions and garlic have already been negotiated for 2023 with another 25% increase in price.”
This is really happening.
Food prices may seem high to you right now, but the truth is that this is the lowest that they are going to get.
The cost of living is becoming extremely oppressive, and countless people out there are really struggling to make it from month to month.
The artificially-inflated lifestyles that we were able to enjoy for decades are now disappearing, and there is a tremendous amount of pain on the horizon.
[…]
Via http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/the-era-of-cheap-food-and-cheap-gasoline-is-over
A Look Back at the Demonization of the Unvaccinated
Michael P Senger
Social media has been in an uproar since a member of European Parliament posted a video of a hearing in which a Pfizer director admitted the company never tested whether its Covid mRNA vaccine prevents transmission prior to its approval for emergency use.
Though the fact that Covid mRNA vaccines do not prevent transmission was, of course, abundantly clear from the data soon after their implementation, this myth was a primary justification for vaccine passes and a primary cause of the unprecedented venom launched at those who refused Covid vaccines throughout 2021 and continuing through today.
Not only did governments exert this pressure through policy, but in many cases politicians and officials used their office to deliberately stoke the social stigmatization of the unvaccinated. Here’s a look back at some of the unprecedented vitriol that was launched at those who refused Covid vaccines from 2021 and beyond.
Officials in many jurisdictions proposed making the unvaccinated pay more for healthcare.
[…]
A particularly disturbing idea that began to gain serious traction among the elite commentariat was to have hospitals triage emergency care to serve the unvaccinated last, or even deny healthcare to the unvaccinated entirely—a fairly clear-cut crime against humanity.
One vocal proponent of the idea of triaging emergency care to disfavor the unvaccinated was David Frum, Senior Editor of the Atlantic, most famous for his outspoken support for the invasion of Iraq. When his infamous tweet on the subject sparked an uproar, Frum doubled down.
Piers Morgan agreed that the unvaccinated should be denied emergency care.
Shockingly, this appalling idea of triaging emergency care based on vaccination status is still being proposed to this day.
The demonization of the unvaccinated was, of course, far from limited to healthcare. Vilifying the unvaccinated became a kind of illiberal fad among the elite commentariat. The US CDC even paid screen writers and comedians to promote Covid vaccines, which in some cases involved paying them to mock the unvaccinated.
<
In a bout of recidivism to the early 20th century, Austria and Germany introduced the chilling concept of “lockdown for the unvaccinated.”
“Lockdown for the unvaccinated” gained traction in the English-speaking world as well.
Most countries, cities, and states across the western world introduced vaccine passes that their own citizens had to show in order to partake in daily life. The World Health Organization published an extensive document on implementing a digital vaccine-pass system, including an international vaccine status registry and instructions on how to later revoke someone’s vaccine pass.
[…]Like so much of the response to Covid, these vaccine passes and the illiberal fad of stigmatizing the unvaccinated were unscientific, unprecedented, ineffective, totalitarian, brutal, and dumb.It was never remotely realistic for any government to expect every single person to get vaccinated, especially when the vaccine in question involved a novel genetic-based therapy. Thus, these proposals to impose draconian hardships on those who refused Covid vaccines would inevitably involve the state imposing draconian hardships on a sizable portion of the population.
According to Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, one of the most credible voices on the subject, Covid vaccines likely yielded benefits for the elderly and vulnerable, but it remains entirely unclear whether Covid vaccines have yielded any benefit at all for healthy adults and especially for children. Coupled with the still-unknown risks associated with mRNA technology and the now well-documented cases of death and serious injury from these vaccines, for governments across the world to have exerted extreme pressure on children and healthy adults to get these vaccines is absolutely sickening.
That some healthy young people were surely coerced into receiving an injection that led to their death or serious injury, when the data showed that the benefits did not outweigh the risks, is an unconscionable tragedy.
[…]
Via https://michaelpsenger.substack.com/p/a-look-back-at-the-demonization-of
Measles Vaccine: Neither Safe nor Effective
The Measles Book
Children’s Health Defense (2022)
Book Review
A good summary of the peer reviewed research on measles and measles vaccine, this disease has an extremely low fatality rate, owing to improved sanitation[1] and steep reduction (over the 20th century) in all infectious disease deaths. According to the CDC, the last measles death was in 2015 in an adult taking immunosuppressant drugs. There have been no measles deaths in the US in the past six years.
Serious complications of measles are also really low. In 2019, 5% of measles cases developed pneumonia and 0.1% encephalitis.
The exact death rate from MMR[2] is unknown, but the VAERS database (which according to Harvard Pilgrim Health Inc records fewer than 1% of incidents) lists 89,032 cases of vaccine injury or death with the MMR. Although the measles vaccine used in MMR is nearly 60 years old, there have been no investigation or quality improvement measures addressing these findings.
In addition, there have never been double blind randomized controlled trials of MMR vaccine for either safety or effectiveness – despite a growing number of peer-reviewed studies linking it to serious side effects in some children. In 1993 the National Academy of Medicine published a report linking it to anaphylaxis and thombocytopenia. In 2011 the Institute of Medicine published a report linking it to encephalitis in immunodeficient children, as well as febrile seizures and anaphylaxis.
Between March 1990 to October 2019, the authors found over 35 other peer reviewed studies linking MMR to various vaccine injuries.
Even more concerning is growing evidence linking childhood vaccines to autoimmune illness. The authors cite a 1994 Italian study linking four autoimmune illness to various vaccines, with MMR specifically linked to rheumatoid arthritis, reactive arthritis and idiopathic thrombocytopenia.
By this point, even government scientists acknowledge the link between MMR and autistic spectrum disorders. Earlier this year the US Vaccine Court paid out a $20 million settlement to a child who developed autism after receiving MMR. They have also paid out three other claims for kids diagnosed with encephalitis who displayed autistic symptoms.[3]
Meanwhile at least 10% of measles cases occur in vaccinated patients. In 2019, 142 of 1,249 measles patients were vaccinated. For me, one of the main weaknesses of the book is its failure to explain that vaccine-induced immunity to measles only lasts 6-7 years.[4]
Nevertheless I totally agree with the authors’ conclusion: given clear scientific consensus that measles vaccine isn’t safe for every child, measles vaccine mandates (for school attendance) need to be abolished. Owing to the obvious risks, this decision must be left to a child’s parents.
[1] The authors neglect the role of improved nutrition status in the steep drop in infectious disease.
[2] Since 1971, Merck, the vaccine manufacturer only makes measles vaccine available in the US as combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. MMR is banned by law in Japan (owing to the apparent link to encephalitis and autism) and the three vaccines must be administered separately. SeeWhy Japan Banned the MMR Vaccine
[3] Since 1986, the Vaccine Court has paid out a total of $4 billion for people killed or injured by vaccines. Since Congress passed the National Child Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, vaccine manufacturers assume no liability for injuries and deaths caused by their vaccines. Instead the US government assumes liability through the Vaccine Court and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program is grossly underfunded and only a small minority of families ever receive compensation. See and only a small minority of families ever receive compensation. See RFK Jr: Vaccine, the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and the CIA Assassinations
[4] For me, another weakness of the book is the authors failure to clarify the different between antibiody-mediated and cell-mediated immunity. The human body fights respiratory viruses like measles mainly through cell-mediated immunity. This is the main reason why the immunity conferred by a measles infection is lifelong, while that conferred by the vaccine (which merely stimulates measles antibodies) is limited to 6-7 years. For me, the most significant danger of measles vaccination is its propensity to leave adults (in whom measles infection is most dangerous) largely unprotected. It also puts newborn infants at risk of measles, as they no longer benefit from their mothers’ natural immunity. See Vaccines: Debunking the Myth of Herd Immunity
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
