Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 688
July 29, 2021
FDA Made ‘Dangerous Error’ by Advising Against COVID Antibody Testing
.By Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D.
Antibody testing is critical for determining COVID vaccine efficacy and necessity, but FDA continues to recommend against the testing for anyone, including people who already had COVID and those who have been vaccinated against the virus.
On May 19 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a dangerous and totally inappropriate guidance advising against COVID-19 antibody testing pre- or post-vaccination.
This FDA guidance is dangerous because it discourages and blocks most American physicians from using a gold standard assay for immunity to COVID-19.
But, it is of paramount importance for every American citizen and resident and his/her physician to be able to assess the status of one’s immunity to COVID-19 during this pandemic for two reasons.
First, if a person is found to have no COVID-19 antibodies prior to vaccination, that person will know that he/she is at high risk of developing an infection. In other words, antibody testing would allow determination of medical necessity of COVID-19 vaccination — and being that most persons act rationally given correct information, it is anticipated that most non-immune Americans will seek vaccination when confronted with a negative test.
I have on multiple occasions publicly called on the Biden administration, the FDA commissioner and the CDC to open the door to antibody testing for establishment of medical necessity as a means of combating vaccine hesitancy. Because I believe Americans to be a rational people and, I know from personal experience in medical practice, that when most hesitant Americans are confronted with the FACT that they are NOT immune, a majority choose to get vaccinated.
Americans are a rational people and want to protect themselves from harm. But, by placing barriers to pre-vaccination antibody testing for determination of medical necessity, the Biden administration’s FDA is dangerously, albeit inadvertently, stoking further vaccine hesitancy through this very specific and misguided policy against antibody testing.
Second, the mRNA vaccine is a highly unstable preparation. Thus, it is very likely that a significant number of mRNA vaccine doses entering individual American arms are either partially or completely spoiled — and, thus, ineffective. The fact that FDA’s May 19 guidance is placing a barrier in the way of post-vaccination antibody testing, effectively blocks determination of vaccine efficacy in individual Americans.
[…]
Bayer/Monsanto to End Sale of Roundup for US Lawn & Garden Market by 2023
29 July 2021 — Sustainable PulseAn important victory for anti-Roundup activists.
Bayer have announced that they will no longer sell glyphosate-based herbicides to U.S. gardeners as of 2023, following the costly litigation battle over their cancer causing weedkiller Roundup.
July 28, 2021
Pfizer says 2021 COVID-19 vaccine sales to top $33.5 bln, sees need for boosters
By Manas Mishra and Michael ErmanJuly 28 (Reuters) – Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) on Wednesday raised its 2021 sales forecast for its COVID-19 vaccine by 29% to $33.5 billion, and said it believes people will need a third dose of the shot developed with German partner BioNTech to keep protection against the virus high.
The company said it could apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose as early as August.
Data showed that a third dose generated virus-neutralizing antibodies more than 5 times higher in younger people and more than 11 times higher in older people than from two doses against the more easily transmissible Delta variant of the virus.
“All in all, I think a third dose would strongly improve protection against infection, mild moderate disease, and reduce the spread of the virus,” Chief Scientific Officer Mikael Dolsten said on a call to discuss quarterly results.
Dolsten added that the data suggested levels of antibodies could be boosted up to 100-fold when compared to levels before the third dose.
The company also posted a non-peer reviewed study on Wednesday suggesting the vaccine’s efficacy declines over time, and had dropped to around 84% effectiveness from a peak of 96% four months after participants received their second dose.
Pfizer shares were up 3.5% at $43.57.
WHO doesn’t recommend Covid booster doses right now, citing lack of data
Student Jack Herrington receives a dose of a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine on the campus of the University of Memphis in Memphis, Tennessee, July 22, 2021.Karen Pulfer Focht | ReutersThe World Health Organization doesn’t recommend Covid-19 booster shots “at this time,” the group’s top vaccine doctor said Wednesday, citing a lack of data on their effectiveness.
Dr. Kate O’Brien, the WHO’s director of immunization, vaccines and biologicals, said the organization is still researching whether a booster shot is needed to increase protection against highly contagious mutations of the coronavirus.
Executives from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which make the three Covid vaccines authorized for use in the U.S., have all said Americans would eventually need a booster following their first series of vaccinations. Pfizer plans to submit its application to U.S. regulators for a booster dose in August, the company said earlier Wednesday.
“We’re very clear on this, there’s not enough information to provide a recommendation at this point,” O’Brien said in a Q&A interview posted on the organization’s social media accounts.
[…]
Has DOJ Reached Wrong Conclusion About Federal Vaccine Mandates?
By Children’s Health Defense
White House officials said Tuesday Biden is considering requiring all civilian federal employees to be vaccinated or be forced to submit to regular testing, social distancing, mask requirements and restrictions on most travel.
[…]
This follows just days after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an online statement concluding that federal law doesn’t prohibit public agencies and private businesses from requiring COVID vaccines — even though the vaccines have so far only received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — not full licensing — from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Ahead of the DOJ opinion, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs last week said it would require its frontline healthcare workers to get the COVID vaccine.
Children’s Health Defense is still analyzing the DOJ memo, but Ray Flores, a California attorney, made some initial observations.
Flores said this isn’t the first time the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has got something wrong.
Flores said:
“The OLC previously condoned torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib, even after graphic details on the treatment of detainees were leaked to the press. Those memoranda were criticized for international norms. This memo brazenly ignores the Nuremberg Code’s law on human experimentation.”
Flores also pointed out that the DOJ memo makes no mention of Doe v. Rumsfeld, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (2004), the precedent-setting case in which the court rejected punishments such as solitary confinement or dishonorable discharge as lawful consequences of refusal of the EUA anthrax vaccine — even though the U.S. Department of Defense had imposed such harsh sanctions.
“The court ruled in that case that coercion eviscerating informed consent violates federal law,” Flores said.
Tucker Carlson lambastes feds on vaccine mandates, masks
On Tuesday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson pounced on the latest news about COVID vaccine mandates.
Carlson said:
“That is not a small development. The federal government is the largest workforce in the world … so an awful lot of lives will be affected by this policy.”
Claiming that we’ve long ago left the realm of health, Carlson said the mandates are about politics and “social control.”
Carlson said:
“Government should never require people to submit to any medical procedure whether that procedure is sterilization or frontal lobotomies or COVID vaccinations. Most Americans still believe that, that is a foundational belief in this country, every poll shows it. The majority in both parties believe that.”
[…]
Statins Double Risk of Dementia AND Are Linked to COVID Deaths
STORY AT-A-GLANCEStatins do not protect against cardiovascular disease and more than double the risk of dementia in some casesPeople with early mild cognitive impairment and low to moderate cholesterol levels who used lipophilic statins had more than double the risk of dementia compared to those who did not use statinsStatin users also had significant decline in metabolism of the brain’s posterior cingulate cortex, which is the brain region that declines most significantly in early Alzheimer’s diseaseAmong patients with Type 2 diabetes admitted to a hospital for COVID-19, those taking statins had significantly higher mortality rates from COVID-19 compared to those not taking the drugsPeople who take statins are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with diabetes and those who take the drugs for longer than two years have more than triple the risk
Statins are effective at lowering cholesterol, but whether this is the panacea for helping you avoid heart disease and extend your lifespan is a topic of heated debate. Again in 2018, a scientific review presented substantial evidence that high LDL and total cholesterol are not an indication of heart disease risk, and that statin treatment is of doubtful benefit as a form of primary prevention for this reason. In short, these drugs have done nothing to derail the rising trend of heart disease, while putting users at increased risk of health conditions like diabetes, dementia, cancer, cataracts, coronary and aortic artery calcification, depression, myalgia, muscle weakness and cramps, rhabdomyolysis and autoimmune muscle disease.
The use of statin cholesterol-lowering medications has been on the…
View original post 2,008 more words
How the US Lost the Trade War with China
“As we all know, the source of Corporate America’s unprecedented explosion in profits in the 21st century is the offshoring of manufacturing to China. If you doubt this, please study the chart below of corporate profits. Apologists claim many excuses in an attempt to evade the central role of offshoring production to China, but they all ring hollow: no, it wasn’t increasing productivity or automation or Federal Reserve magic, it was shipping production to China and other low-labor-cost nations.”
[image error]
Source – capitalistexploits.at
“… China is laying siege to the USA by slowing down production and delivery of goods… Corporate America sacrificed national interests in service of greed, and so did the U.S. government. As we all know, the source of Corporate America’s unprecedented explosion in profits in the 21st century is the offshoring of manufacturing to China“SM:…”The Art of War” – to lure your opponent into a false sense of superiority, bowing in humble servitude before him before quickly rising & striking the decisive “dead blow’ – The once invincible giant has been slain…
THE MOST TERRIFYING MAP IN THE WORLDIt’s a race to the bottom for US trade
If there ever was a time when you could see a trend solidly in motion, now is it.
That the Western, previously civilized world is in decline has been known to anyone with an ounce…
View original post 919 more words
The Price of Progress: How Safe is European Agriculture
The Price of Progress: How Safe is European Agriculture
Al Jazeera (2020)
Film Review
The title of the film suggests industrial agriculture represents “progress,” which I dispute. In the process of making a handful of people very rich, corporate farming has destroyed millions of acres of topsoil (see Regenerative Agriculture: Saving the Planet While Restoring Topsoil and Growing Healthier Food), while simultaneously contaminating most of humankind with more than 100 persistent toxic chemicals (see New Environmental Chemical PFAS in Pregnant Women).
The film’s format consists of multiple soundbites from corporate lobbyists, EU regulators and environmental and human rights advocates on the topic of industrial agriculture. The attitude of each group is fairly predictable. The corporate executives attack the Precautionary Principle for being anti-scientific and discouraging investment; the regulators respond defensively that their processes are totally transparent and unbiased; and the environmental and health advocates challenge the corporate capture of both scientific research and EU regulatory agencies. They also point to the link between increased pesticide use and skyrocketing breast cancer rates, the failure of EU regulators to ban Monsanto’s Roundup (despite its proven link with non-Hodgkins lymphoma); the refusal of regulators to release pesticide safety data; and corporate (and regulator attitudes) that exports, jobs and growth are more important than people’s lives.
Personally I would have preferred a formal debate format that allowed environmentalists and health advocates to directly challenge the lobbyists and regulators about their blatant disinformation.
For example, one lobbyist asserts that pesticides are essential because Europe has no more land to dedicate to food production. This is totally untrue. Thanks to ongoing industrialization, agricultural land continues to be abandoned at a high rate in Europe (see https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc113718.pdf) – increasing corporate profits while producing food that is tasteless and nutrient-poor.
Another industry lobbyist claims Europe must continue fossil fuel use in agriculture to double food production (to accommodate population increases) by 2050. This is also blatant propaganda. Decades of research reveal that the monoculture cropping that characterizes (which produces only 20% of the global food supply) has much lower yields (in calories per acre) than more traditional organic polyculture farming. (See Regenerative Agriculture: Saving the Planet While Restoring Topsoil and Growing Healthier Food)
I was also discouraged by the so-called debate over the “independence” of EU scientists who evaluate the scientific merit of industry safety studies. I think it’s a waste of time to ask industry to perform objective research on the pesticides they manufacture. Surely the safety of Roundup and other pesticides can only be meaningfully assessed by independent research.
July 27, 2021
CHD Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst: ‘Absolutely Absurd’ to Let 11-Year-Olds Make Vaccine Decisions
By Children’s Health Defense Team Rolf Hazlehurst, senior staff attorney with Children’s Health Defense (CHD), on Monday appeared on the “Mornings With Nick Reed” radio show to discuss CHD’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020.
Rolf Hazlehurst, senior staff attorney with Children’s Health Defense (CHD), on Monday appeared on the “Mornings With Nick Reed” radio show to discuss CHD’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020.The law, passed earlier this year in the District of Columbia, allows children as young as 11 to be vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
Hazlehurst told host Kyle Wyatt how the D.C. law was designed specifically to deceive parents about their children’s vaccination status. He also discussed the issues associated with allowing an 11-year-old to make medical decisions.
According to Hazlehurst, the law states that a minor child 11 years of age or older may consent to receive a vaccine “if the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard and the vaccine is recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,” which operates under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“It’s absolutely absurd to put an 11-year old in that position,” Hazlehurst said. “A child that age can be easily coerced, and they don’t comprehend the risk involved.”
Hazlehurst explained that without knowing their child was vaccinated, parents can’t monitor the child for potentially dangerous vaccine reactions, such as an allergic reaction or seizures.
Hazlehurst has firsthand knowledge about vaccine injuries. About 20 years ago, after his son developed autism following a vaccine, Hazlehurst learned “the hard way” what it’s like to try to get compensation for a vaccine injury through the government-run Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
Hazlehurst said:
“What most people don’t realize, if you are injured, or your child is injured, the pharmaceutical company can’t be held liable. Your right to a judge, a jury, the rules of law … are all taken away. You’re put in a subclass of citizenship … where the only legal remedy is a special master, who is nothing more than a government-appointed attorney.”
The VICP was established after pharmaceutical companies were granted immunity under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
To understand the 1986 law, Hazlehurst said, “you have to go back to the early 1980s,” when there were multiple lawsuits against vaccine makers alleging the DTP vaccine had caused seizures, brain damage and death.
“Two things happened as a result of those lawsuits,” Hazlehurst said. The DTP vaccine was replaced with the presumed safer DTAP vaccine, and pharmaceutical companies lobbied for liability protection, he explained.
Hazlehurst said the fact that vaccine-injured children and their parents are rarely compensated under the VICP is all the more reason not to allow 11-year-olds to make their own decisions when it comes to vaccines.
Under the VICP, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services medical staff reviews the petition for compensation, determines if it meets the medical criteria for compensation and makes a preliminary recommendation.
Then the U.S. Department of Justice develops a report that includes the medical recommendation and legal analysis and submits it to the court.
“So you’re up against the full weight of the government,” Hazlehurst said.
As for his son’s case, it was one of six that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — where they lost.
Hazlehurst said the D.C. law is the first of its kind — but if it isn’t overturned, more will follow.
[…]
Research: Will civilization collapse in 2040?
A controversial 1972 MIT study, The Limits of Growth, predicted the collapse of civilization – and new research confirms the gloomy scenarios.
Originally published by Schwarze Pfeil. Translated by Riot Turtle.
Amid a cascade of alarming environmental events, from wildfires in the west of the U.S. and Siberia to flooding in Germany [as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, Uganda, China, India and Turkey] and a report suggesting the Amazon rainforest may no longer be able to act as a carbon sink, a new study predicts collapse around 2040 if the current trends continue.
While “the world” looks forward to a recovery in economic growth after the devastation caused by the Corona pandemic, research raises urgent questions about the risks of trying to simply return to pre-pandemic normalcy.
In 1972, a team of MIT scientists came together to study the risks of civilizational collapse. Their system dynamics model, published by the Club of Rome, identified threatening “limits to growth,” which meant that industrial civilization was well on its way to collapse sometime in the 21st century due to massive exploitation and overuse of planetary resources.
The controversial MIT analysis sparked heated debates and was widely derided at the time by experts who misrepresented the results and methods. But the analysis has now received validation from a study by Gaya Herrington. Gaya Herrington is a Dutch sustainability researcher and consultant of the Club of Rome.
The study was published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology in November 2020 and is available on the KPMG website. It concludes that the current business-as-usual path of global civilization is headed for the ultimate decline of economic growth within the next decade – and in the worst case, could trigger societal collapse by around 2040.
Given the unappealing prospect of collapse, I was curious to see which scenarios were aligning most closely with empirical data today. After all, the book that featured this world model was a bestseller in the 70s, and by now we’d have several decades of empirical data which would make a comparison meaningful. But to my surprise I could not find recent attempts for this. So I decided to do it myself.
Gaya Herrington, Director Advisory, Internal Audit & Entrprse Risk
Titled “Update to limits to growth: Comparing the World3 model with empirical data,” the study attempts to assess how MIT’s “World3” model compares to new empirical data. Previous studies that attempted to do this found that the model’s worst-case scenarios accurately reflected real-world developments. However, the last such study was completed in 2014.
Herrington’s new analysis examines data on 10 key variables, namely population, fertility rates, mortality rates, industrial production, food production, services, non-renewable resources, persistent pollution, human well-being and ecological footprint. It found that the most recent data were most consistent with two particular scenarios, “BAU2” (business-as-usual) and “CT” (comprehensive technology).
“The BAU2 and CT scenarios show a growth stop within about ten years,” the study said. “Both scenarios thus show that a continuation of business-as-usual, i.e., continuous growth, is not possible. Even combined with unprecedented technological development, business-as-usual would inevitably lead to a decline in industrial capital, agricultural production and wealth levels within this century.”
Study author Gaya Herrington points out that collapse in the MIT World3 models “does not mean that humanity will cease to exist,” but that “economic and industrial growth will cease and then decline, affecting food production and living standards… In terms of the time frame, the BAU2 scenario shows a steep decline starting around 2040.”
[…]
Via https://enoughisenough14.org/2021/07/27/research-will-civilization-collapse-in-2040/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
