The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) is recommending for everyone six months of age and older to get vaccinated against both flu and COVID-19 this autumn, and in a new ‘Check-In with Dr. Cohen‘ video, CDC Director Mandy Cohen even suggests you can make life simple and get the shots at the same time. See the below screen shot.
In a would-be humorous ad featuring American football star Travis Kelce on doing ‘Two Things At Once,’ Pfizer is likewise promoting the idea of topping up the annual flu shot with a COVID-19 shot.
Note that the ad contains a caption which states, “The CDC recommends getting your COVID and FLU SHOTS at the same visit if you’re due for both” (capitalisation in original).
But is it safe to get the Covid and flu shots at the same time?
Well, neither the CDC nor the manufacturer know. An August 30th BioNTech press release on the EU’s authorisation of Pfizer and BioNTech’s “XBB.1.5-adapted” COVID-19 vaccine includes the following paragraph in the ‘Important Safety Information’ section.
Interactions with other medicinal products or concomitant administration of COMIRNATY, COMIRNATY Original/Omicron BA.1 or COMIRNATY Original/Omicron BA.4-5 with other vaccines has not been studied.
Apparently, this is “important safety information” which has not reached Mandy Cohen and the CDC.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed an amendment that would prohibit funding for transgenic edible vaccines — vaccines grown in genetically engineered plants for consumption by humans or animals.
The amendment, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to the agricultural appropriations bill H.R. 4368, would bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from funding the vaccines for fiscal year 2024.
A vote on the full bill in the House is still pending as of this writing.
In an interview with The Defender, Massie said he introduced the amendment after learning about a recent project in California, funded by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, that involves growing lettuce and trying to get the lettuce to produce mRNA vaccines that are intended to be consumed by humans who eat the lettuces.
Massie said he is concerned “that plants cross-pollinate and pollen from these modified plants, food-producing plants, could carry in the wind to other fields and contaminate them. And we could really contaminate a lot of our food supply with unknown doses of vaccines that would deliver unknown dosages.”
“Plants release pollen and it can go anywhere with the wind or with insects, and I just think it’s a bad idea,” he added.
Update on Food Freedom legislation from last night:
✅Protecting HerdShares: passed by voice
✅Prohibiting funds for transgenic edible plant vaccines: passed by voice
⁉️Stopping the electronic cattle tag mandate: vote today!
“Rep. Massie is right to be concerned,” Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, told The Defender. “Genetically engineering a potent immunogen into food plants is irresponsible in the extreme.” She added:
“All the usual risks of GM [genetically modified] plants — the DNA-damaging effects of the GM transformation process leads to changes in gene expression and biochemistry of the plant, which can include the production of toxins or allergens — apply to these vaccine-producing plants, with additional risks on top.
“In the case of vaccine-producing plants, you are intentionally engineering a plant to elicit an immune reaction. This increases the level of risk exponentially.”
‘Either they don’t work, or they are not safe, or both’
According to a 2013 scientific paper, transgenic edible vaccines “are prepared by introducing selected desired genes into plants and inducing these genetically modified plants to manufacture the encoded proteins.”
Such vaccines offer “several potential advantages” to conventional vaccine production techniques according to the paper, including a potentially lower cost of production that would be suitable for developing countries.
Efforts to develop transgenic edible vaccines are not new — scientific literature on the topic dates back to at least 1999.
What is new with some current attempts to develop transgenic edible vaccines is that they would be geared to deliver mRNA vaccines orally.
“These are all genetically modified crops,” Massie said. “They’ve been injected with mRNA or spliced with DNA, with the intent of creating copies of that RNA or DNA. The plants are pretty effective at that.”
Robinson said this approach is not new. “Scientists have been trying to produce edible vaccines in plants for many years and some testing has occurred in animals and humans.”
However, she added, “Thus far, not one plant-produced vaccine has been approved anywhere, as far as I know. What does that tell us? Either they don’t work, or they are not safe, or both,” Robinson said.
California project is ‘utter madness’
The California lettuce project that drew Massie’s attention, conducted by scientists at University of California (UC), Riverside, is described as an effort to develop “The future of vaccines,” which “may look more like eating a salad than getting a shot in the arm” via turning “edible plants like lettuce into mRNA vaccine factories.”
“The project’s goals … are threefold,” according to UC Riverside. “Showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage.”
This may help overcome challenges currently facing mRNA vaccine technology, namely, “that it must be kept cold to maintain stability during transport and storage.”
Plant-based mRNA vaccines “could overcome this challenge with the ability to be stored at room temperature,” university researchers said.
Juan Pablo Giraldo, Ph.D., an associate professor at UC Riverside’s Botany and Plant Sciences Department, is leading this research project alongside scientists from UC San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University. He said, “Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person.”
“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” he added. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”
Robinson called such efforts “utter madness,” telling The Defender :
“Scientists are talking about people growing vaccine-containing plants in their gardens and farmers growing them in their fields. It is utter madness to propose to release such plants into uncontrolled conditions in this way.
“Vaccines are medicines, and their use and dosage must be carefully controlled. With any medicine, only the target patient should be treated, with their informed consent. How will these safeguards be in place if people are growing vaccines in food crops in their gardens and open fields?”
“The deployment of these transgenic edible vaccines would involve a gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation, and thus constitute a crime against humanity,” he said. “Their release into the environment would violate the Precautionary Principle of customary international environmental law. They would also be subject to the same human health objections to GMO foods that are too numerous for me to list.”
“What about cross-pollination and cross-contamination?” Robinson questioned. “People will ingest immunogens without their consent or knowledge.”
Risk of prion diseases, ‘dangerous immune reactions’
Robinson said there may also be several other unintended consequences for human health from the use of transgenic edible vaccines.
She said:
“Plant-produced vaccines will have what is known as post-translational modifications to the intended protein product. You will not end up with just the desired protein product as it exists in its native form in the pathogen. These post-translational modifications will be specific to the plant, and in humans or other animals they will produce dangerous immune reactions.
“Even the responses to the desired protein product — the ‘vaccine’ — will vary from person to person because people respond differently to different proteins. Also, you can end up with proteins that are toxic or that are not folded properly, with the latter property meaning that they could cause prion diseases.”
“In addition, it’s possible that the novel proteins will sensitize people to other things, such as foods,” Robinson said. “In an age where food allergies are increasing rapidly, do we really want to risk worsening that trend?”
Massie said there are other ways in which the human food supply could be contaminated by plant-based vaccines, noting that animals could eat plants and “that could eventually contaminate food that humans eat.”
“How do you control the dosage when you put it in food?” Massie asked. “I think it’s just a really bad idea. Even if you’re not against vaccines in general, I just think this is a really bad way to deliver vaccines to people or animals,” he said.
He added:
“I think we should have learned our lesson. If we believe that COVID-19 was a lab escape and the result of human experiments, which I do and most Americans do, then I think you should be concerned about these outdoor labs … Here we’re talking about greenhouses or open fields.”
Along similar lines, Boyle said, “We know that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have produced a massive number of deaths and adverse events that have been thoroughly documented in the professional literature.”
“These transgenic edible vaccines would likewise be more dangerous than useless, so I wholeheartedly support Massie’s amendment,” he added.
In drawing another parallel with COVID-19, Massie likened the UC Riverside study to “science fiction.”
“Unlike some of the other research that’s been done for vaccines for animals to be grown in plants, this project in California is intended to develop vaccines for humans … I have no idea what they’re doing with this stuff. It sounds like something out of a science fiction movie,” he said.
He added:
“I think we learned from the COVID virus that you’ve got to be careful with this stuff. When you start playing God and you start modifying genes and merging DNA that’s never been merged before, you can get some unintended results. And if those escape, you can have some really bad implications or consequences.”
Similar experiments went awry
According to Massie, similar experiments with transgenic edible vaccines were conducted in the past, sometimes with government funding and support — including a project to develop transgenic alfalfa plants for edible vaccine production.
That five-year project, launched in 2016 by Fort Valley State University in Georgia, sought to “develop transgenic alfalfa plants expressing the CTB gene, which can be used in plant-based edible vaccination systems.”
The project was supported by an unspecified level of funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and resulted in the publication of at least one scientific paper.
“And then there’s another instance where things went very bad,” Massie said. “About 20 years ago, they were trying to grow a vaccine to prevent diarrhea in pigs and they were using corn to grow this vaccine. The field the next year was used to grow soybeans, but the corn sprouted again.”
According to Massie, “There were some leftover kernels … and the corn was mixed with the soybeans, and it contaminated 500 bushels of soybeans that were then mixed with 500,000 bushels. And so, they had to destroy all of those soybeans.”
The New York Timesreported in December 2002 that ProdiGene, the biotechnology company that developed the corn crop, agreed to pay the U.S. government a $3 million fine “to settle charges that it did not take proper steps to prevent corn that was genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals from entering the food supply.”
While it is unclear whether this particular project was granted U.S. government funding, an archived version of the website from 2007 of Texas A&M University’s Food Protein R&D Center, which hosted the research, said the center “collaborate[d] contractually with … state and federal research laboratories” and was “partially funded by the Texas Food and Fibers Commission.”
In November 2000, ProdiGene received an unspecified grant amount from the National Institutes of Health for the development of a transgenic edible vaccine intended to “develop genetically enhanced corn that could serve as an oral delivery system for an AIDS vaccine.”
Massie told The Defender he’s not passing a law that would prevent private organizations from doing this research, “but I’m using the appropriations process this week to try to defund the use of taxpayer dollars to develop these things.”
He said the amendment is in the form of a limitation agreement. “It doesn’t institute a law,” he said. “It will only prohibit government funding from being spent on this. So even if it’s successful, it will only last for the term of the appropriations bill, which is one year.”
“If we’re successful in stopping this through the appropriations process, we would have to do this every year,” Massie said, adding that “this amendment … only constrain[s] the FDA and USDA from doing this research. It wouldn’t actually constrain the NSF.”
For that to happen, Massie said “We’ll have to have another amendment on a different appropriations bill to keep that agency from funding this research.”
Massie pledged to introduce similar amendments if this happens.
“If that appropriations bill comes to the floor, I will offer an amendment to limit the funding for this type of research on it as well,” he said. “If the appropriations bill that funds the NSF should make it to the floor, I’ll offer this identical amendment to keep them from funding it.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
It has taken some time for the medical establishment to catch up, but at last they seem to have done just that. A recent article in the queue for publication at the peer reviewed journal BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine has arrived at the same conclusion as we have.
The study, published under the ‘Analysis’ column of the journal with international authorship from the US, Denmark and London, makes some awkward reading for those who adhere to the long Covid narrative. All the points we have made in the past are there, including the very broad definition of long Covid which means that almost any symptom that anyone suffers following a bout of Covid is ascribed to long Covid. We have seen how the list, initially in double figures, was honed down to fewer than ten only to grow again into double figures. On that basis, if we put our minds to it, we could all have long Covid. The fact that there are also very different definitions of long Covid existing across organisations such as the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is included.
A key point made in the article is the ‘striking absence of control groups’. Put simply, if someone who has had Covid claims that they have long Covid, they are believed without comparing the number of people who have never had Covid reporting the same symptoms. Where rigorous designs have been used, including properly matched controls, the results have been described as ‘reassuring’; in other words, reassuring in the sense that the extent of long Covid may well be exaggerated. Not included in the article is the report that half the people who report having long Covid have never had Covid, something we have referred to several times.
Of key importance is what the authors refer to as the ‘unintended consequences’ of exaggerating the issue of long Covid which include ‘increased societal anxiety and healthcare spending, a failure to diagnose other treatable conditions misdiagnosed as long Covid and diversion of funds and attention from those who truly suffer from chronic condition’. In the wake of Covid measures which led to the near-closure of the NHS, waiting lists which continue to grow and the increase in undiagnosed and untreated cancer and cardiovascular disease, the long Covid narrative is simply adding to our problems.
It becomes increasingly clear that long Covid exists because people want it to exist. The kind of people who fell for the Covid narrative hook, line and surgical face mask, simply cannot let go of their addiction to catastrophe (which is a real thing). The public health fascists who stock our university health faculties and the higher echelons of the NHS need some excuse to maintain the culture of fear. All of this plays into the pockets of Big Pharma who have warehouses full of vaccines to sell.
It is unlikely that the BMJ article will turn things around and get us off the long Covid bandwagon, but it does offer a glimpse of hope.
We’ve written a lot about the systemic failings in government policy regarding care homes (see here, here and here).
However, a recent study on the transitions between hospitals and care homes caught our eye. The sort of study that bypasses the media: Two care home providers with 20 to 40 care homes each in the South West and the North East of England participated, and 70 participants were interviewed.
The study exemplifies the impact hospital discharge policies had: “… hospitals just wanted patients out, regardless of COVID status. To be brutally honest, they weren’t interested; they just wanted people out. In those early days, you know, it was very traumatic.”
And how hospitals desperately enacted a policy to clear the decks: “… we had a phone call from a nurse from the hospital to say that … this lady was lying beside somebody, less than two meters, who was COVID-positive.”
These instances highlight how thoughtless and reckless the government policies were. Driven by error-strewn modelling along with a chronic lack of capacity in the NHS, panic set in: hospitals would be quickly overwhelmed. Something had to be done to free up capacity – an easy target was found: the elderly and the most vulnerable and brutally the least able to stand up for themselves.
Hospital discharge service requirements were first published on 19 March,. On 2 April, the guidance said, “Some of these patients [admitted from a hospital or a home setting] may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic. All of these patients can be safely cared for in a care home if this guidance is followed.
This policy, which saw discharges to care homes without testing, has been ruled unlawful by the High Court. In Gardner & Anor, R, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham found that government policy was “irrational” because it failed to consider the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from asymptomatic transmission.
It took until 15 April to recommend testing and 14 days of isolation for admissions to care homes. Before this, negative tests were not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home.
The study interviews show that care homes became no-go zones: “GPs or other healthcare professionals or multidisciplinary, like, podiatrists, everyone has difficulty coming to see the residents as of high demand or they can’t come for whatever reason, so COVID-19. They used to come, now they are no longer able to.”
The study also emphasises the inhumane practice of isolating vulnerable people ‘Strong feeling that isolating care home residents went against usual practice and, for some, was very hard to endure, especially when they needed human contact and emotional support from family and friends following a period of hospitalisation.’
We’ve written about “Confinement Disease”, which is likely more harmful than covid in care homes. ‘Among long-term care residents in the Southern Ile-de-France region, more than 24 covid deaths among 140 residents occurred in 5 days. None were due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and death was mainly due to hypovolemic shock as residents were confined to their rooms for several days without assistance with eating and drinking.’
Confinement leads to feelings of being in prison: “… rather than keeping them in hospital we would send them [to the COVID-19 unit], and then once they’re 14 days clear, I know it’s 10 now, but it was 14, then they would go back to their original care home. But it’s just been carnage, to say the least.”
The study interviews also showed how degrading and impersonal confinement practices were “… so they couldn’t have their belongings until it had been left in a certain place and washed at a certain heat and 72 hours before you can have them back. You go in your room, and you can’t see anybody, and when you do, they’ve got masks and visors, and you cannot hear them, and you’ve got all of that.”
Socially distancing and isolating the most vulnerable comes with costs. The practice of rapidly discharging patients is unlawful, yet is anyone interested at a government level in how to better look after those in care?
Patients were discharged from high-resourced hospital settings – where some had time to do Tik-Tok dances – to low-resourced care homes, which worsened as staff went off in their droves—the opposite of what you need, as less care equates to more deaths. Then you isolate vulnerable people who can’t care for themselves – again, the polar opposite of what these people need, preventing much-needed personal care that can be life-saving. Even worse, at the end of life, were the restrictions on who could share that moment, hold a person’s hand as they drew their last breath, and prevent compassionate care at one of the most important times.
The potential for harm is exceptionally high in care homes; with quarantining, physical and mental deterioration occurs rapidly, and renal failure occurs swiftly in the face of dehydration – the ultimate price to be paid is a lonely death.
In what seems like an inevitable development, scientists Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman have been awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their role in developing the mRNA technology underlying the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which were rolled out in late 2020.
But in a paper published as recently as 2018 and which is extensively quoted in an article at MedPageToday, none other than Drew Weissman warned that prior clinical trials of mRNA vaccines had produced results which were “more modest in humans than was expected based on animal models… and the side effects were not trivial”, including “moderate and in rare cases severe injection site or systemic reactions”.
Further summarising the paper by Weissman and three colleagues in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, MedPageToday notes:
Their chief safety concerns, which they said should be closely watched in future trials, were about local and systemic inflammation, as well as keeping tabs on the “expressed immunogen” and on any auto-reactive antibodies.
“A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity,” they wrote. “Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken.”
The authors also noted that extracellular RNA could contribute to edema, and cited a study that showed it “promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation.”
Recently, the U.S. Marine Corps lost (and later found) an F-35 aircraft. The circumstances are mostly undisclosed or rumor based, though that is to be expected in regards to such a sensitive matter. While it has become a comical example of incompetence, it’s not the worst thing that the U.S. military has lost.
They’ve also lost nuclear weapons… on a few occasions.
The U.S. term for it is “Broken Arrow.” There have officially been 32 reported incidents involving Broken Arrows. Lost ‘nukes’ outside of the United States are unknown, given that not all national governments are as open with information. The U.S. has admitted that six nuclear weapons remain lost. During the reign of the Soviet Union, it is possible that such weapons also went missing, especially in the chaotic years following the break up when ownership and security of the strategic arms repeatedly changed hands or remained in limbo.
Another concerning reality is that Soviet era “suitcase sized” nukes may also be unaccounted for. Retired Russian General Alexander Lebed has claimed that as many as one hundred such devices are likely missing. These one kiloton ‘mini nukes’ assigned to Spetznaz special forces are not only the perfect weapon of terror, but are small enough that they could be misplaced in a storage facility somewhere slowly “cooking” until the moment of accidental detonation. That is the real concern for all of the missing nukes. If the safety mechanisms on them fail or erode, they may someday detonate with random carnage. Given that all seem lost in remote locations, there is still a risk of harming the innocent, not to mention the environmental impact such an event would cause.
The first Broken Arrow occurred in February 1950, when a B-36 bomber, while experiencing mechanical issues, dropped an atomic bomb over the Pacific Ocean near Princess Royal Island. The Mark 4, 30-kiloton (Fat Man) bomb is still missing to this day. Four more accidents in 1950 occurred with U.S. bombers carrying nuclear weapons over American soil. Thankfully none of the accidents resulted in nuclear detonation.
In March 1956, a B-47 bomber crashed in the Mediterranean sea with two nuclear cores onboard. The bomber, its crew, and their nuclear devices remain missing. During a training mission in February 1958 another USAF B-47 bomber carrying a Mk 15 atomic bomb collided with an F-86 Sabre fighter jet. The bomb was dropped over Wassaw Sound before the crew could attempt an emergency landing. The crew survived, though that bomb remains missing also.
Such accidents and the potential for further Broken Arrows increased during Operation Chrome Dome, an ambitious readiness routine that kept U.S. nuclear bombers airborne 24hrs a day. Armed and constantly flying, at least a dozen strategic bombers remained capable of hitting the Soviet Union in response to any attack around the clock. In 1961, early into Chrome Dome, a B-52 crashed shortly after take off in North Carolina. One of its 24-megaton nuclear bombs remains missing. Another bomb from this incident that was recovered showed that three out of the four arming mechanisms had been activated; fortunately, there was no nuclear explosion from this mishap. The other missing bomb’s safety mechanism status remains unknown, along with its whereabouts.
It was not only the Strategic Air Command that lost nukes. The U.S. Navy had a Broken Arrow in December 1965, when an A-4 Skyhawk armed with a one-megaton thermonuclear bomb fell off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, USS Ticonderoga. The Skyhawk, its aviator, and bomb remain missing around 500-miles from land beneath the waves of the Pacific Ocean. In the spring of 1968 the USS Scorpion sank 400 miles southwest of the Azores Islands, taking with it the lives of 99 crew members and a pair of nuclear tipped weapons. These nuclear weapons and their radioactive material remain deep under the ocean, and only time will tell what long term damage such weapons will cause.
An incident that was considered one of the worst nuclear accidents of its day occurred in January 1966 when a nuclear weapon splashed under the waves close to Spanish fishermen near the Alboran Sea, meanwhile three thermonuclear bombs crashed into the countryside outside the village of Palomares, spreading radioactive plutonium. The U.S. government conducted an extensive clean up, shipping thousands of tons of contaminated Spanish soil back to the United States. The area remains contaminated still to this day, and the missing bomb is somewhere under the water.
Other Broken Arrows are as follows: two bomber accidents in 1956, three in 1957, six in 1958, four in 1959, one in 1960, three in 1961, another in 1963, three more in 1964, up to three in 1965, another in 1966, three for 1968, one for 1969, one in 1975 and one in 1980. A further seven more accidents occurred up until 2000.
Each of these incidents involved American or Russian aircraft or submarines and some ended with a loss of life, but with the potential to cause a catastrophic mass death event. That’s not to mention the environmental damage that is likely being felt to this day. The safety protocols on these devices have been proven to be life saving, and clean up operations have been thorough or at least as best able to manage. That is when a clean up occurred at all or when any recovery was possible.
It is unknown what other nuclear armed governments have experienced and whether their weapons have undergone accidents and losses. Given the sheer number and regular movement of their arsenals, it stands to reason that the United States and Soviets would experience more accidents than other, smaller powers. We can assume these governments have better safety standards and training in regards to such weapons. It’s hard to imagine that Pakistan, North Korea, or even China would have the level of training and practice when it comes to handling such weapons compared to the United States. Then again, by having far less of them available, it stands to reason that they may be a little less reckless with the deployment of such weapons. Future accidents and losses involving nuclear weapons remains likely.
We are sliding into a world of frightened global environmental awareness, notably under the blanket of “climate action.” Governments across the planet are taking it upon themselves to tax and grow in the name of green policies. The truth of the matter is that government is not only wasteful and destructive (even when well meaning), but it’s also often incompetent and reckless. The placard of environmental protection is the fixture for future policies based on altruistic sloganeering. ‘Save the planet’ has become a mantra for public servants to spit out while they consume resources, blow the planet to pieces, and steer society into a path that in the years to come will be as dangerous to nature as current policies.
There was a time when the wider public and most conscientious activists were concerned by nuclear war and the catastrophic effects of just one bomb detonating, let alone numerous. It seems that with the climb into yet another cold war and the irrational desire for jingoism that the potential for nuclear Armageddon has been forgotten, or is at best a distant nightmare of a prior generation. The energy to save the planet is alive and well, but it has become hijacked by awareness advocates and big government careerists who wish to just paint the status quo green. Heightened tensions between powers capable of destroying the planet with nuclear weapons is dangerous, for both the obvious, direct implications of war but also because we may see a return to the Broken Arrows of the past. Losing an F-35 shows that there could again be the loss of a cheaper nuclear tipped system that may fall from or be lost with another aircraft. We know it’s possible because it’s already happened.
To imagine that the biggest government in the world has time and time again not only poisoned the planet with chemical defoliants, plumes of death from burn pits, scattered bombs over civilians, sprayed herbicides in the hopes of curbing drug production, pumped depleted uranium into each war zone it’s created, dropped mega litres of jet fuel into the ocean, ruined sea life with naval activities, and dropped numerous atom bombs all over the place… but as it turns out, has lost some too.
While it’s unlikely a third party will find them first, those unaccounted weapons of mass destruction linger as a potential danger that in time may leak or explode with catastrophe. No amount of benevolent prayers for a big government solution will every fix the culture of government itself.
Humanity and our planet deserve better than to be constantly left in the hands of central planners who rule with both cynicism and incompetence. Even well meaning reformers drown in such a work place. If another world war is not a bad enough prospect, losing the weapons intended to wage it certainly won’t save the world.
The missing F-35 was found after a few days. The nukes, if anyone in the government is even still looking, may turn up when we least expect it. Life on Earth is too precious to constantly be put at risk with such contemporary and political stupidity. How many of these regimes and administrations can the planet survive? The only green government is the one that does not exist. If you want to fix the planet then we need to get out of its way and let nature heal. And there is no tax for that; for the destroyers of the world, that’s precisely the problem.
Oncologist and cancer researcher, Dr William Makis, is sounding the alarm on the sudden rise in “turbo cancers”, a recent term coined for the incredibly fast growing cancers found in COVID vaccinated individuals. Hear what the early data is showing in the causal relationship with the vaccine and the struggles doctors are having treating these patients.
I am, admittedly, no expert in artificial intelligence, quantum entanglement, computer programming or computation.
In fact, my enemies would say I am no expert in anything, and they would be mostly right. My domain of self-proclaimed expertise resides in the world of fantasy, illusion and unfathomable mental processes, whose signature and traces I have spent a lifetime teasing out in the intense one-on-one work of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and also in the creative work of poetry and theatre.
No doubt I may be deluding myself even with this allusion to personal talent, but to sum it all up I’d say that my professional training and career, my abiding creative interests, and my own art all meet at a common interface — that border between fantasy and reality, deception and truth, notwithstanding the inherent ambiguities.
Looking back over the Coronavirus Epoch, now in its fourth year, I am struck not only by the savage and slavish devotion of many to the pompous dictates of States, but also by the craven renunciation, by once-honored institutions of health and governance, of accepted foundational principles. Thus Medicine conveniently forgot about natural immunity, treatment and the dangers of new untested interventions, and Medical Institutions, global and national, embarked on a jihad against practitioners who remained faithful to such principles. In New Zealand, I am disheartened to say, the authorities are still harassing doctors who had the temerity to try to help patients by prescribing Ivermectin or suggesting Vitamin D, Zinc, and Vitamin C as promising protective and ameliorating agents.
Governments, empowered by the populations they purport to represent, conveniently seized upon drastic measures to control, while neglecting truly beneficent and sensible measures to mitigate fear and address a threat of illness.
Sacrosanct boundaries have been serially violated throughout, borders have been transgressed, and privacy has been desecrated — all, ostensibly, in the name of our good common cause of safety.
Under the shadow of fear we allowed ourselves to be masked, contained, and inoculated. At times we were prevented from visiting our elderly and sick and beloved, or paying respects to our loved ones’ mortal remains when they died. Coincidentally the line between genders began to be blurred, and the barriers between impulse and action taken down. All because of the putative emergency that ‘necessitated’ a suspension of ordinary safeguards and customs in favor of hastily adopted and inadequately debated dictates and untested procedures that engulfed most of our known world.
The monies we earned and banked, and banked upon — they too became prey to the grasping and lawlessly invasive arm of governmental entities. And those who dared to opine against the prevailing dogma on the ‘commons’ offered by social media found themselves disappeared.
We learned over these past years that our freedoms, our monies, our bodies and our souls were all now ‘fair game’ in this manufactured emergency. It was quite the trick to convince so many to go so fully along with these sacrifices. And the neatest part of this trick was for the Organizers and Rulers to have created a vast bureaucratic interface that not only did their bidding but also absorbed responsibility for anything that went awry — like sudden deaths and excess deaths and horrific adverse effects of the unnecessary Jabs.
And as for censorship, well, this too could be relegated to AI-mediated algorithms, as if the hand of Man had given way to this novel and peculiar Deity of impersonal computational complexity. It is a marvel of moral sanitizing.
Many of my friends and colleagues continue to be puzzled by these developments as aberrations of rationality, while others have long concluded that these actions have been purposefully deceptive and malevolent.
I believe we have entered a new phase, a phase facilitated by astonishing advances in physics and mathematics, a phase that has given birth to a transcendent technological web that is as vast as it is impersonal, as cold as it is efficient. It is, nonetheless, a tool that has been devised and is wielded by the relatively Few in their ceaseless war against the Many.
Perhaps some of the Few believe and worship at the altar of the False Idol they have created, while others are content simply to profit from their sleight of hand. But both camps are united, I suspect, by the thought that they are cheating Death. Whether it is a transhumanist future and/or the imaginary protection of boundless wealth and power, both parties are vying for an illusionary immortality.
Which brings us back full circle to the sad Achilles heel the propagandists knew to strike so well when they launched their Operation: the universal fear of death. How many of my neighbors accepted the destruction of their rights to save their skins? How many became ogres of apartheid and accused the unjabbed of reckless endangerment?
I’m tired of repeating myself, but repeat I must because the danger — the real one, not the feigned — hasn’t gone away. And it is this: the danger that we refuse to accept our deaths and cling to the wildly absurd quest for living our physical lives forever and ever.
In Plato’s Phaedo, the philosopher and gadfly Socrates, who has been condemned to death by the Athenian democracy, confronts his fate with equanimity. The demise of the physical self becomes the portal to the greater life of the Soul.
The Soul, in our times, resides in a Machine, a gigantic faceless and bureaucratically impartial one — or so would the overlords like us to believe. Perhaps that is why they are so frantically despotic in censoring, quashing, silencing, harassing and persecuting any shreds thereof.
But the harder they try the less they will succeed. They, in their smug sadistic ignorance, don’t truly know what they are really up against.
Parents should be concerned that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this month granted full approval to Moderna’s “Spikevax” COVID-19 vaccine for children 12 years old and older — because now that the vaccine for school-age kids is no longer an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) product, states and schools may be more likely to mandate the shots, according to Dr. Meryl Nass.
Nass, an internal medicine physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientific advisory board, called the FDA’s decision “outrageous and illegitimate.”
“The ACIP [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] actually voted to add the COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule in October 2022, Nass said. “So states may begin adding them to their state’s vaccine schedule.”
“That could, in turn, result in public school vaccine mandates for this vaccine,” she added.
The FDA also on Sept. 11 also amended the EUA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine to include its updated monovalent formula, for infants and children ages 6 months through 11 years, that targets the Omicron variant XBB.1.5
Moderna’s updated EUA shot is a monovalent vaccine that targets the Omnicron XBB.1.5 variant.
New shots ‘risk injuring millions of Americans’
Nass and other doctors, including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory, told The Defender the newly licensed “Spikevax” vaccine for kids as young as 12 and the updated shot for infants risk injuring millions of Americans, including children.
“It is reprehensible that the CDC recommends this booster for 12-year-olds when the FDA has no data on how these children might be affected,” Kory said.
“The government’s recommendation on the COVID-19 vaccine goes against everything we are trained to do as physicians and, thus, can only be rationally understood as being crafted in the service of the pharmaceutical industry and its interests rather than in the best health interests of U.S. citizens.”
McCullough said he does not recommend the new boosters, including Moderna’s shots, in his clinical practices.
“The Omicron variant XBB.1.5 that Moderna’s booster is designed for is “long gone,” he said, and the outbreak of the most recent circulating COVID-19 strains, EG.5 and FL.1.5, is “very mild in Americans, most of whom have natural immunity.”
Kory said the dangers of the mRNA shots — for people of all ages — are well-documented. “In my practice alone, we have over 900 patients, most disabled from the mRNA vaccines.”
Dr. Fred Wagshul, an Ohio pulmonologist and a founder of the FLCCC, said the entire list of catastrophic diseases and conditions aggravated by the mRNA spike protein applies to children as well.
Wagshul said he was alarmed by recent research, presented in testimony to the South Carolina legislature by a molecular biologist and cancer geneticist Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D., that the Pfizer vaccine contains DNA fragments that would “disrupt the genomic stability” of the human race and wreak havoc on children.
Kory said he has lost faith in U.S. health authorities’ willingness “to consider the scientific evidence objectively, rationally and independently” when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines and therapies.
He said:
“As much as there is no medical justification for the vaccine, there is absolutely no need for any mandates for anything related to COVID-19. The government’s true motivation appears to be to continue pushing a vaccine the public doesn’t want or need in an attempt to not admit that the vaccine campaign has failed in every respect regarding safety and efficacy.”
‘Myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in children’
McCullough, a board-certified internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist with more than 1000 publications and over 685 citations, has written extensively on the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination.
He cited recent research showing that six months after being vaccinated, 80% of teens who were diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis still had not recovered.
McCullough said there have been “record rates of injury, disability and death after vaccination with the government-provided COVID-19 genetic products. He said he particularly has concerns about Spikevax:
“The safety profile reported by Moderna on Spikevax, which is known to load the body with the long-lasting, disease-promoting SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, appears to be the same or worse than the original mRNA vaccines.
“Injection site pain, headache, fatigue, myalgia and chills, are consistent with previous formulations of Spikevax which led to 7.7% of recipients making emergency trips to hospitals as reported in the CDC V-safe data.”
Nass, too, called out the FDA for putting U.S. children and teens at risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis by approving Moderna’s shots. She said:
“The precautionary principle and common sense clearly indicate that no further shots should be given to anyone until the rates of myocarditis, both subclinical, and clinical, and the rates of all other side effects have been established.”
According to data retrieved Sept. 27 from VAERS, there have been roughly 473,769 injuries and more than 9,500 deaths reported following vaccination with a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
Kory noted, “In 2022, with many fewer vaccines administered compared to 2021, the rate of myocarditis reports to VAERS is averaging 245% higher than last year — [and] the myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in children.”
Kory said the latest research on COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis is “horrifying.”
The authors, including McCullough, analyzed VAERS data which showed that myocarditis reports since 2021 are 223 times higher than the average of all vaccines in the past 30 years, Kory said.
FDA ‘silent’ on data showing increased death following COVID-19 vaccination
Commenting on the FDA’s recent decision, Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, said, “No child should be given these newly updated vaccines until there is compelling data on clinical efficacy and all-cause mortality. There is neither.”
Kirsch said, “All world governments are keeping the record-level public health data on these vaccines a secret. If they work so well, why the secrecy?”
He continued:
“From U.S. nursing home data released by the CDC, we now know that the COVID vaccines have increased risk of death from COVID for the very population they were designed to protect.
“The FDA is silent on this data. If the vaccines really saved lives, it would show up in this dataset. It doesn’t.”
Kirsch added that he has publicly challenged any qualified scientist to an open debate on this data. “No takers. That should tell you everything you need to know,” he said.
Nass said that with “approximately 800 million vaccinations in the U.S. over the past three years, there is no excuse to withhold or fail to obtain this information.”
Nass added:
“Federal agencies have not seen fit to provide the public with this information, nor have they done or directed that careful, active surveillance be performed, which involves checking troponin levels, pre-and post-vaccination.
“Until we have this information, no risk-benefit calculation for different age groups and risk groups can be calculated. Without this information normally you cannot roll out any public health program.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to establish a national “public-private” network to sweep up unprecedented amounts of individual and community data and develop artificial intelligence (AI)-driven models to predict disease outbreaks.
That infrastructure will then help local, state and national health officials identify and implement appropriate “control measures” to manage potential disease outbreaks.
As part of this effort, the agency last week announced an estimated $262.5 million in grant funding over the next five years to establish a network of 13 infectious disease forecasting and analytics centers to coordinate this work across the U.S.
The funding provides roughly $20 million each to 11 universities that were actors in COVID-19 modeling and response. The list includes the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which oversaw the Event 201 simulation and the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health, where Ralph Baric initiated gain-of-function research.
Two of the centers will be private entities — Kaiser Permanente Southern California and a “disaster preparedness organization” called International Responder Systems LLC, whose relevant experience includes running tabletop exercises for weaponized Anthrax outbreaks and helping to manage the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
Some centers will work with U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) researchers and bioengineering firms to develop new AI and machine-learning-based modeling tools and platforms to track and predict disease outbreaks across the country.
Others will work with insurance companies, healthcare providers, local health departments and others to collect data from people’s search histories, personal communications, social media posts, wastewater, health records and more.
They will also pilot new tracking and prediction tools in adjacent neighborhoods or among specific demographic groups and scale up “successful” pilot projects.
The grantees will form the Outbreak Analytics and Disease Modeling Network (OADM) through cooperative agreements with the CDC, which will be an active partner in the work.
“What they’re constructing is a panopticon of epic proportions, which will be inescapable in the future and will make for surveillance, not only of people’s behaviors, but also, as they’ve said themselves, of their very thoughts.”
He said the COVID-19 pandemic response provided a paradigmatic example of the dangers of predictive modeling.
“The use of modeling is a very poor predictor of infectious disease, and it has been abused in the past, in particular with reference to COVID-19.”
Rectenwald, who is also a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, cited the work of Neil Ferguson, the physicist at Imperial College London who, along with his team, created the epidemiological model in early 2020 that predicted the catastrophic global death toll from COVID-19.
Ferguson’s model was used to justify social distancing, masking and lockdowns.
But his predictions — which were criticized at the time by experts such as Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D. — turned out to be wildly exaggerated in real-world tests.
“I would anticipate further abuses with this CDC modeling network being set up,” Rectenwald said.
‘A National Weather Service, but for infectious diseases’
The network is spearheaded by the CDC’s new Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics (CFA), set up by the Biden administration to model, predict and control the course of disease outbreaks across the country.
“We think of ourselves like the National Weather Service, but for infectious diseases,” Caitlin Rivers, Ph.D., a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist and associate director for science at CFA told The Washington Post last year when the White House formally launched the initiative.
“Much like our ability to forecast the severity and landfall of hurricanes, this network will enable us to better predict the trajectory of future outbreaks, empowering response leaders with data and information when they need it most,” the CDC said in its funding announcement for the initiative.
Just as the weather forecast helps people to decide whether to take an umbrella with them when it predicts rain, for example, a disease forecast can help people decide if they should bring a mask, or have a birthday party inside or outside, Rivers told the Post.
In July, Eric Rescorla, former chief technology officer at Mozilla who was tapped to be chief technologist for CFA, told Politico it is “a startup in government” that will need a lot of government funding and that will work very closely with private industry.
The surveillance ‘the American people want and deserve’?
CFA was formally established as part of the CDC in January of this year, but it has been in the works at least since January 2021, when Biden announced plans for the agency in the administration’s first national security memorandum.
Then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who consistently pushed for legislative and other changes to “modernize the public health data policy framework” when she was in office, said at the time:
“This new center is an example of how we are modernizing the ways we prepare for and respond to public health threats. I am proud of the work that has come out of this group thus far and eager to see continued innovation in the use of data, modeling, and analytics to improve outbreak responses.”
CFA began making grants in Oct. 2021, awarding $21 million to five academic institutions — including Johns Hopkins and Harvard — and $5 million to the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy to develop disease modeling capabilities.
In December 2022, the CDC renewed its partnership with Peter Theil’s CIA-linked data mining firm Palantir, signing a $443 million contract “to employ scalable technology to plan, manage, and respond to future outbreaks and public health incidents” — an award meant, in part, to “help support innovation” for CFA.
“Folks want us to be ready to know of threats and to respond quickly. Well, we need data and visibility to do that. And so that is money that will help us to see threats and respond to threats faster. And that’s what I think the American people want and deserve.”
But Rectenwald warned that rather than protecting people this system will be a threat to anyone who doesn’t comply with coercive public health directives. He said:
“The surveillance that they’re unrolling here has great potential for infringement on privacy and also for targeting individuals and groups for non-compliance, and as such, abuses of their civil rights and liberties.
“This system will be capable of locating individuals and communities that are not abiding by the coercive measures being ‘recommended.’ And then they can impose even harsher restrictions on these same people. So this is a very, very pernicious prospect.”
CFA reveals ‘a revolving door’ between biotech, government health agencies and the DOD
Rectenwald told The Defender that the CFA collaboration reveals a revolving door phenomenon that we see in government more generally.
“We have government officials being drawn from the private sector and then granting awards that go back to the companies for which they worked, or to which they’re headed. There’s a lot of collusion underway here,” he said.
CFA is headed by Dylan George, Ph.D., who has spent his career moving between U.S. government health agencies, and the DOD and just prior to being tapped to head up CFA, he had a five-month stint at biotech firm Ginko Bioworks.
Ginkgo Bioworks is one of the only private firms explicitly named as a partner on one of the CFA grant awards, with Northeastern University. It is also a key partner in developing other global pandemic surveillance and predictive programs, such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute.
Besides Ginko and Palantir, CFA’s website indicates it partners with “many” public and private organizations. In April 2022, CFA convened a conference called “CFA: 101 for Industry.”
At the conference, George, along with representatives from Databricks, Peraton, Microsoft, RTI, Dell Technologies Redhat/Carahsoft, Optum Serve and Maximus Public Health Analytics, gave presentations on the importance of “public-private partnerships” to CFA’s work.
The industry representatives also discussed their current and past collaborations with CDC to develop the tracking and analytic tools and platforms CFA hopes to ramp up.
Panelists included Michelle Holko — formerly of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), principal architect scientist at Google Cloud for healthcare and life sciences at the time of the conference in 2022, and currently chief strategist for Defensive BioTech — who spoke on the origins of CFA’s disease forecast research in DARPA.
Holko, also a former fellow at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Johns Hopkins Center for Biosecurity, talked about the value of Google search histories and personal digital interaction data to affect public health outcomes.
They provide key information, she said, “because, you know, a person’s desire and willingness to get vaccinated has a huge impact on what’s to happen with a public health crisis,” she said.
‘A new age of public health’: example data collection, prediction and control projects
Data can be used to understand people’s desire, but also “everything that’s going on in their environment, and in their thoughts and in their circle,” Holko said, which has serious implications for public health.
To illustrate how such data could be used, she explained how Google collaborated with the state of California during the COVID-19 pandemic to mine people’s search data and other personal data. They developed a “vaccine willingness score” for each individual person whose data they analyzed.
Then they positioned mobile vaccine vans in neighborhoods with low vaccine rates but some willingness to be vaccinated.
“They were able to take a 25% gap between the lowest quartiles of the Healthy Places index and the highest quartiles and just flip that right upside down,” she said, adding that such targeting addresses a health equity issue.
Holko also talked about the value of wearables in capturing biological data, which, she said, might make it possible to detect a pathogen inside of a person’s body even if they aren’t experiencing symptoms.
Rivers added that it would be important for public health agencies like CFA to get the things they need — like the ability to go out and swab anyone whose data they need directly — rather than having to depend on other adjacent data sources like biometric data, social media data, etc.
Researchers at RTI presented their RTI Synthetic Population project where they have modeled a “synthetic population” of over 300 million individuals, each representing a U.S. person, with their attributes, age, race gender, income, education attainment, job and whatever other data they can glean, which they then use to project epidemiological events.
There were many such presentations.
The overall takeaway was that the contemporary availability of massive amounts of data has created a “new age of public health” and a mandate for new tools to capture and analyze data using novel applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence.
George said many of the people in the room had been dreaming of a forecasting network like CFA for almost a decade, and they had been “right to be opportunistic” about the “window of opportunity” that presented itself for them to finally set it up.
The ‘extremely ironic’ list of grantees
The OADM is the first major initiative by CFA and sets up its infrastructure across the country. The 13 centers in the network will act as networks themselves.
As the CDC put it:
“In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, CDC has worked collaboratively with state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments, public health organizations, academia, and the private sector to improve and scale outbreak response and provide support to leaders to prevent infections and save lives.
“This national network will build on these collaborations and improve outbreak response using data, modeling, and advanced analytics for ongoing and future infectious disease threats and public health emergencies.”
Awardees include:
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security received $23.5 million for its project, “Toward Epidemic Preparedness: Enhancing Public Health Infrastructure and Incorporating Data-Driven Tools.” It will create partnerships with “public health stakeholders” and it will train students, practitioners and modelers — including meteorologists — to use modeling and analytic tools.
The University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health was awarded $22.5 million to support the creation of the Atlantic Coast Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics and Analytics, which will develop methods, tools and platforms for disease modeling and coordinate them among the 13 funded partners in the network.
Northeastern University won $17.5 million for an “innovation center” called “Epistorm: The Center for Advanced Epidemic Analytics and Predictive Modeling Technology.” Epistorm will coordinate efforts among ten healthcare systems, research organizations and private companies to use data from wastewater surveillance, social media, and hospital admissions and apply AI and machine learning tools and other predictive analytics. The consortium’s academic members include Boston University, Indiana University, the University of Florida and the University of California at San Diego. Other members include Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, MaineHealth, Northern Light Health and Concentric Ginkgo Bioworks.
The University of California at San Diego (UCSD) won $17.5 million to “develop innovative tools and networks” that analyze data sources to determine their predictive power. Data sources will include molecular epidemiological data, wastewater and air surveillance; exposure notification systems (smartphones and contact tracing), internet searches and posts, “legally available clinical data,” and scenario-based simulations. The team will pilot test their innovations among vulnerable populations in San Diego, including homeless people and drug users. UCSD will also partner with other California universities and LANL.
A team of researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and University of Massachusetts Amherst was awarded $27.5 million to scale up decision-support tools that have been used in previous outbreaks. They will partner with two dozen other entities, including local public health agencies. Northwestern University received $1.7 million in funding to support these efforts.
Carnegie Mellon University will receive $17.5 million to expand on work it did during the COVID-19 pandemic, gathering daily data “from health care systems, technology companies, medical test results, insurance claims and surveys” to steer policy and public health decisions by applying machine learning and AI tools. It will work with public health agencies and with healthcare providers like Optum to make healthcare data available to researchers.
The University of Michigan School of Public Health won approximately $17.5 million to establish the Michigan Public Health Integrated Center for Outbreak Analytics and Modeling, which will develop modeling and data analytics tools and pipelines to be integrated into the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services systems.
The University of Minnesota School of Public Health and the Minnesota Department of Public Health (MDH) will receive $17.5 million to develop predictive tools by surveying individual community interactions and developing machine-learning algorithms to identify symptom clusters. They will work closely with the Minnesota Electronic Health Record Consortium, a partnership between the MDH and the 11 largest health systems in the state.
A team of researchers at Emory University will receive $17.5 million to “innovate” new analytical methods, tools and platforms to inform public health decisions.
Clemson University will work with the University of South Carolina, Medical University of South Carolina, Prisma Health, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Clemson Rural Health, and South Carolina Center for Rural and Primary Health Care to integrate forecasting and decision-making tools.
The University of Utah received $17.5 million for its new ForeSITE (Forecasting and Surveillance of Infectious Threats and Epidemics) center, which will “provide data and tools” to guide decisions about emerging public health threats. It will do this through partnerships with the national Veterans Affairs health system and hospitals and health departments in Utah, Washington, Idaho and Montana.
Kaiser Permanente Southern California will work in partnership with academic modeling teams based at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, San Francisco, using its 4.7 million members as a basis to “develop and test strategies to improve use of public health data.”
International Responder Systems will work with the University of California, Los Angeles, and Primary Diagnostics “to deliver an enhanced outbreak analytics diagnostic system and a continuous education program to upskill our public health workforce.
Rectenwald said:
“It’s extremely ironic that these universities and institutions have been chosen to undertake the research and modeling. For example, the University of North Carolina Gilling School of Global Public Health initiated gain-of-function research, which was then undertaken in Wuhan, but funded by the NIH through EcoHealth Alliance.
“So isn’t it ironic that this school, the university research center that had a great deal to do with the gain-of-function research that led to COVID-19, is now getting 4.5 million annually for five years?
“It’s an outrage.
“And the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security is receiving $23.5 million from the CFA to conduct its project. Curiously, the same center was also the host and organizer of two major events, the CLADE X simulation and the Event 201 simulation, both of which forecasted, in advance of COVID-19, almost the exact scenario that unfolded.
“I wouldn’t trust that Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins with this kind of money and this kind of power to direct the behavior of governments, health organizations, localities, and states in response to anything because they forecasted the kinds of draconian lockdowns, masking, and forced vaccinations that took place in response to COVID-19.
“Likewise, in this scenario, I would expect them to advocate the exact same kinds of measures.”
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
The United States CIA organized a coup to overthrow the neutral government of Ukraine and installed a Russian hating regime in 2014 that wanted to drive millions of ethnic Russians out of Ukraine. This led to a rebellion in eastern Ukraine where the Russian majority took up arms to protect themselves. This led to a small civil war that was quickly settled with a peace agreement. These 2015 Minsk agreements were brokered by France and Germany, agreed to by Ukraine and Russia, and accepted by the United States. Ukraine would retain official ownership of this rebellious region called the Donbas that would be granted full autonomy for internal rule. The Minsk agreements were endorsed unanimously with United Nation’s Security Council Resolution 2202, see the link in the description.
Ukraine never complied by withdrawing its heavy weapons from the Donbas region and continued random artillery and tank fire into Donbas cities. The Donbas rebel’s ability to retaliate was limited because the Ukrainians fired from urban areas mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians. Russian President Vladimir Putin appealed to the United Nations, United States, France, and Germany to apply economic and diplomatic pressure on Ukraine to abide by Minsk. They promised to help and the occasional terror bombardments into Donbas cities lessened, but never stopped as they killed thousands of civilians, mostly ethnic Russians.
NATO refused to pressure Ukraine to adhere to the Minsk agreements and continued massive economic and military assistance. Ukraine possessed only 6000 combat-ready soldiers in April 2014 but NATO help allowed it to build its military into the second largest in Europe comprising about 250,000 active-duty troops and 80,000 reservists who were trained at the billion dollar American built base at Yavoriv where hundreds of American soldiers were based. Ukraine soon had more tanks than France, the United Kingdom, and Germany combined.
President Putin began to understand that NATO had no interest in peace. He correctly concluded that the United States planned for war on Russia. We now know this for certain because in 2022, Minsk agreement signers, former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and former French President François Hollande, admitted that the Minsk agreements were a deception to trick Russia into a ceasefire with the promise of a peaceful settlement to buy Ukraine and NATO time to build up its military to attack Russia.
_________________________________
“Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2202 (2015); Security Council Calls on Parties to Implement Accords Aimed at Peaceful Settlement in Eastern Ukraine”; United Nations; February 17, 2015; https://press.un.org/en/2015/sc11785….
For years Israel and its lobby around the world have been trying to normalise their relations with Arabs and Muslims without solving the Palestine Question.
One of the methods they resorted to in the last few years is using human rights and community organizations such as interfaith dialogue and Multiculturalism to achieve this objective and to: isolate the Palestinians, marginalise the Palestine question, end Israel’s isolation, and prevent criticism of Israel, knowing that these organisations will be the first to stand against Israel’s violations, racial and religious discrimination.
The group responsible for this task in Australia is The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC); its Director of International & Community Affairs, Jeremy Jones is in charge of lobbying religious community organizations, specifically Muslims and Christians. Consequently he convened the Faith Communities for Reconciliation, founding participant in the Australian Partnership of Religious Organisations and the Australian National Dialogue of Christians, Muslims & Jews.
AIJAC is a private political propaganda group. It is recognised as the main Israeli lobby in Australia. It coordinates its activities and works intimately with the Israeli embassy in Canberra and different institutions in Israel. It is privately funded by some Jewish businessmen. It monitors closely Australian politicians, the media, ethnic and religious groups, (especially Arabs and Muslims), unions and academics on their stands towards Israel and the Palestine question. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
• Children Living In Bombshelters Entir… 
Aletho News
Aletho News 