Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., join forces in their new book, “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” to share authentic, peer-reviewed scientific studies that show the direct health outcome comparisons of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.
“Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” will be released on Tuesday by CHD Books, an imprint of Skyhorse Publishing. The first of its kind, this book is a compendium of over 100 true vaccinated-unvaccinated studies with easy-to-read graphics to inform scientific scholars and laypersons alike. The preponderance of studies outlined in “Vax-Unvax” are indexed in PubMed, the National Library of Medicine’s vast database of biomedical scholarly research.
The clinical vaccine trials performed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rarely involve comparisons to control groups receiving a truly inert placebo. In the limited instances that they do, the control group is later given access to the experimental vaccine, eliminating the ability to identify non-acute reactions and any possibility of long-term safety studies. Kennedy and Hooker wrote “Vax-Unvax” to apprise the public of the pitfalls of vaccination and the potential for long-term detrimental health effects in children and adults.
“This book is essential reading for parents, practitioners, and anyone concerned about the health effects of vaccines and the vaccination schedule,” said Hooker. “This resource should be kept at hand for understanding the differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is sitting on a vast data repository called the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). It includes comprehensive medical records for over 10 million individuals, including 2 million children. The VSD also contains records for numerous unvaccinated children, yet the CDC refuses to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children. The CDC also prohibits outside researchers from accessing VSD data to undertake such studies.
“For decades, the CDC has kept a tight grip on the Vaccine Safety Datalink, concealing vital vaccine safety information from the public,” said Kennedy. “This data is particularly important for parents making healthcare decisions for their children. The suppression of this information and the government’s steadfast refusal to conduct basic research on long-term health outcomes following vaccination is a scandal that has taken a tremendous toll on the health of our nation’s children.”
In 2019, Kennedy and Hooker began sharing highlights of studies published in the scientific literature that compare vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals on Kennedy’s Instagram account. In 2021, after over 60 scientific studies were featured in his posts, Kennedy was censored and deplatformed on Instagram. This led to the creation of “Vax-Unvax,” as he and Hooker continued their compilation to ultimately include over 100 scientific studies that juxtapose the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
“Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other online booksellers.
# # #
Children’s Health Defense® is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. We fight corruption, mass surveillance and censorship that put profits before people as well as advocate for worldwide rights to health freedom and bodily autonomy.
Temperatures in cities have been known for a long time to be much warmer than surrounding rural areas. Instead of eliminating the Urban Heat Island contaminated data, NASA and NOAA use it contaminate surrounding rural stations as well.
For several weeks I have been messaging the scientific community and the public about an approach addressing the burden of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in tissues and organs in the human body that is largely responsible for post-COVID and vaccine injury syndromes.
No therapeutic claims can be made since large, prospective, double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trials have not been completed on any of the compounds mentioned in this paper. I checked clinicaltrials.gov and no such trials have been planned. The Biden HHS US Action Plan for Long-COVID Research has pumped a billion dollars into long-COVID research and no new therapies have emerged. HHS, NIH, CDC, FDA have not recognized the larger issue of vaccine damage to the body.
At three and one half years into the pandemic and two and a half years into the COVID-19 vaccine debacle, myself and my clinic partners formulated a baseline regimen upon which additional drugs or agents can be added. We believe the Spike protein and the inflammation caused by it and its proteolytic fragments are at the heart of the pathophysiology we are observing.
We searched the literature for all available sources of evidence for products that can aid the human body in breaking down and catabolizing the Spike protein. We found two compounds, nattokinase and bromelain. Both of which additionally have fibrinolytic properties which are advantageous in the prothrombotic milieu induced by the persistent Spike protein. Curcumin was added for its anti-inflammatory properties in the setting of post-COVID and vaccine patients. The main safety caveats are bleeding and allergic reactions, both of which are manageable. It is our experience that both nattokinase and bromelain can be used in addition to antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs with physician monitoring.
The empiric regimen can be continued for 3-12 months or more and be guided by clinical observation:
-Nattokinase 2000 FU (100) mg orally twice a day without food
-Bromelain 500 mg orally once a day without food
-Curcumin 500 mg orally twice a day (nano, liposomal, or with piperine additive suggested)
McCullough PA, Wynn C, Procter BC. Clinical Rationale for SARS-CoV-2 Base Spike Protein Detoxification in Post COVID-19 and Vaccine Injury Syndromes. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 28 Number 3 Fall 2023, 90-93.
The full manuscript is linked and serves as your reference. While we are seeing case examples of improvement, we aim to collaborate with others as we did with the McCullough Protocol, to demonstrate clinical effectiveness of Base Spike Detoxification as a fundamental strategy for a large number of individuals who have suffered long-term consequences from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination.
The Times’ Juliet Samuel points out that “climate change belief should be tempered by scepticism of dramatic predictions of what’s coming, theories rolled out with great fanfare and based upon massive simplifications”. Iain Martin, in a piece entitled “Naive net zero groupthink misses the point of rising geopolitical dangers“, wonders “who will be the first mainstream party leader to stop telling us fairytales and test whether the electorate can handle the truth of our situation?”.
In a hard-hitting polemic, Gerald Warner expounds on the “great fallacy regarding climate change”, namely “the assumption that because the perceived threat was global, it required a supranational, one-size-fits-all response”. From the Left, Thomas Fazi writes for UnHerd that “nightmares and elitist fantasies” have replaced “the actual material conditions of people as the basis for politics – ‘saving the planet’ becomes more important than saving actual human beings”. Similarly, Ralph Schoellhammer (“The human cost of Net Zero”) highlights the “dangerous, infantile outlook” of the climate alarmist lobby who “indulge in fantasies about the energy transition”.
One wishes that these voices had been raised before today, as the UK is committed via the Climate Change Act 2008 to rapidly decarbonising itself. The purported aim of this is to fast-track our society’s transformation into some sort of mythical evergreen carbon-free nirvana. This single-minded demonisation of carbon (and carbon emissions) brings to mind various possible fallacies – what if we are missing the woods for the trees?
It is an inconvenient and unfortunate truth that the momentum of a speeding juggernaut requires more energy and time to slow down. If only we could attach the Net Zero juggernaut to a generator to feed the grid. Ironically enough, in the wonderfully credulous world of the woke warriors against warming, it seems that such real-life parodies exist.
Resistance to Net Zero groupthink has to date been limited to a lonely chorus of diehard sceptics who have been quietly and systematically removed from the public square. This is all the more surprising when one considers the extent to which history has been rewritten, and past misdemeanours forgotten. The 2009 story of “climategate” has been almost completely erased from the national consciousness. A reminder: the efforts of key players in the climate alarmist camp to produce data that supported the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis were shown to be somewhat irregular. Computer code that was used to produce temperature models required the application of copious quantities of “fudge factors” to produce the temperature hockey sticks that were needed to scare the populace.
Don’t take my word for it: even George Monbiot remarked at the time that the behaviour was “unscientific”. He also pointed out that one of the key protagonists “seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity” when suggesting that emails subject to an FOI request be deleted. Monbiot then lapsed – true to form – back into the language that we are used to hearing from such commentators about “deniers” who deserve everything coming to them due to uttering heresies that challenge the state religion.
Rare as it may be for me to agree with Monbiot on anything, he did claim to be someone who has “championed the science” and stated that “we should be the first to demand that [the science] is unimpeachable”. I agree with this last statement. However, and here is where we disagree, the science he is promoting is most certainly not settled and, therefore, not unimpeachable, despite what the tellybox might be telling you.
One of the entities that controls this narrative is the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, a UN body. Through various working groups, this supranational religious order regularly publishes papal decrees that update the liturgy to be distributed to the masses by the priestly orders, such as the Behavioural Insights Team, aka the Nudge Unit. One of the fundamental tenets of this religion is that “one of the defining challenges of the 21st century [is] human-induced climate change”. Specifically, there is an irreversible “tipping point” of warming due to the anthropogenic influence of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc.) being released into the atmosphere.
As I have written about previously, heretics who speak out against the priesthood’s wishes get quite rapidly closed down. In fact, it seems that the priesthood wishes to make such wrongspeak a criminal offence. To limit the chances of any questioning plebeian masses going off-piste, the UN works with popular search engines to ensure that top search results align with their orthodoxy. Thankfully, the flailings of the Monbiots and ludicrous talk of “global boiling” from old men in suits have provoked some modest pushback from certain quarters. The new head of the IPCC, Jim Skea, has struck a different tone from his predecessor: “The world won’t end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees”. Such words are in marked contrast to recent claims about man-made climate catastrophes and fatally undermine the justification for our aggressive Net Zero policies.
But the underlying articles of faith remain, as yet, unchanged. Apparently, we must still “battle against climate change”. The “short-term focus should remain expanding renewable electricity to reduce emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation and from internal combustion engine vehicles”. Hmm. Forgive my scepticism about throwing perfectly functioning vehicles into landfills to be replaced by a completely new technology. A new technology with a supply chain based on raiding the earth’s crust for rare elements with an as-yet untested post-processing/reuse/recycling infrastructure.
It is high time that the heretics get to say their piece. It is an article of faith for the IPCC that reducing CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions can somehow effect a reversal of recent climate changes. This is a sacrament upon which rests the whole Net Zero edifice. Sub-sacraments are threefold. Firstly, CO2 emissions have gone up materially over the last few hundred years. Secondly, this is primarily due to human activity since the industrial revolution. Thirdly, there is a direct causal link that these emissions have created most – if not all – global warming/boiling/climate change. These all have to be true to justify the breakneck pace of decarbonisation efforts.
The first point, that CO2 emissions have definitely increased, is generally accepted even though the absolute increase of CO2 in the air has gone up over the last 100 years or so from 0.03 per cent to just over 0.04 per cent. This level is substantially lower than the optimum for plant growth – just ask anyone involved in food production, but evidence for the subsequent points is by no means clear-cut.
Going into specifics, CO2 is often a lagging indicator of temperature (both in the short, medium and longer-term), or seems disconnected from temperature variations. Moreover, if it is taken as read that CO2 levels are unprecedented in the current Holocene (i.e. since the last ice age), then we have a somewhat unsatisfactory scenario whereby the existing literature – both scientific and of professional historians – regarding the Medieval Warm Period (1 degree warmer, a millennium ago) and the Climatic Optimum (2.5 degrees warmer, 5-8 millennia ago) flatly contradicts recent alarmist claims that July 2023 was “quite likely the warmest month on Earth in 10,000 years”.
To overcome doubters, much work has been put in by adherents of IPCC doctrine to simplify the message and eviscerate previously published data that conflicts with the various sub-sacraments. For example, the Medieval Warm Period and Climatic Optimum have been dubbed the “Holocene Temperature Conundrum”, a thorn in the side of the faithful, as they fundamentally undermine the obsession with emitted CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
The solution? Models! A recent Nature paper was able to erase the troublesome Conundrum by relaxing a previously stricter requirement on data points in the (vast) Southern Ocean “to increase coverage in this data-poor region” and smooth out temperature gradient over the last 10,000 years. All this despite recognising that their model has a fundamental limitation that it is based on “priors from a single model … which are inevitably biased by model deficiencies, resolution and uncertainties in boundary conditions”.
Another attempt to discredit the historic literature is to claim that these periods of higher temperatures were actually localised events. But this is hardly the killer argument that IPCC adherents think it is. It only highlights the current cherry-picking approach favoured by the media of highlighting isolated warm temperatures as being due to the climate, but ignoring low temperatures in other areas as being due to the weather. This is something that climate alarmists would do well to note.
The NASA analysis of the Maunder Minimum is another problem for the “global boiling” narrative. This analysis of the period from 1650 to 1710 when “temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase”, emphasises that in periods of overall lower temperatures, some particular geographies – such as the Atlantic and the Arctic – can in fact exhibit relative warming. So a milder Arctic could, of course, be consistent with stagnating, or even falling, global temperatures.
There are other problems for the simplistic sub-sacraments that undergird the IPCC’s creed. Water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. What of the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption that spewed over 165 million tons of water vapour – not 50 million tons as initially thought – into the atmosphere? A combination of observations, including the earth’s recent waning magnetic field, warm localised patches of suddenly hot sea to the West of areas of subsea volcanism, lagging jumps in CO2 air concentration and the recent slowing of the earth’s rotation by unexpected microseconds (a non-trivial issue as angular momentum must be conserved – where did the energy go?), point to the conveyance of heat from the earth’s core, up through the mantle and to the surface. The different heat capacity of air versus that of water discount the atmosphere as a source of this warming on such a rapid timescale.
These are fascinating observations. A burning desire to explain the hugely complex interactions of our natural world should be driving a deep scientific urge to come up with creative hypotheses.
However, the strictures of the dominant religion are not conducive to open-minded research. The peer review process is broken. We desperately need a “blue team” grouping of sceptical investigators that are not in the pockets of those who have pre-decided the outcome of such research. Quoting Gerald Warner: “The government should assemble a panel of genuine climate experts who have not taken the IPCC shilling, discounting computer ‘modelling’, when the result is dictated by the data fed in, in favour of empirical evidence… we need authentic, unbiased scientific information, not the extravagant propaganda of climate alarmists”.
Our current de facto accelerated Net Zero trajectory is going to be a bumpy ride. More worryingly, it seems that its proponents do not really want to discuss whether the sacrifice is worth it. Can we discuss whether it is just an almighty boondoggle? It may be worse. It could be a set of policies that will destroy society as we know it, and make our children’s futures incalculably worse.
We owe it to future generations to pause the current madcap pace of change and engage in an adult conversation to win over the rank and file. There are very, very good reasons to invest in sustainable and non-polluting clean energy, but as pointed out by sensible centrist commentators, there is no need for coercion.
Let’s remember, CO2, the IPCC’s sworn enemy, is a life-giving substance that is present in trace quantities in the atmosphere and is contributing to the greening of our planet. It would be an unmitigated disaster if we back the wrong horse(s) by rushing to enforce a flawed doctrine derived from a mistaken demonisation of carbon dioxide.
In 1983, Michael Barkun, today a professor emeritus at Syracuse University, wrote an incredible essay, presciently identifying the rise of a “New Apocalypticism” in American political discourse. Today I share some excerpts from that 40-year-old essay — Divided Apocalypse: Thinking About The End in Contemporary America — and connect them to today’s public discussions of climate change.
Barkun defined the “New Apocalypticism,” as follows;
The so-called “New Apocalypticism” is undeniably religious, rooted in the Protestant millenarian tradition. Religious apocalypticism is, however, not the only apocalypticism current in American society. A newer, more diffuse, but indisputably influential apocalypticism coexists with it. Secular rather than religious, this second variety grows out of a naturalistic world view, indebted to science and to social criticism rather than to theology. Many of its authors are academics, the works themselves directed at a lay audience of influential persons — government officials, business leaders, and journalists — presumed to have the power to intervene in order to avert planetary catastrophe.
Barkun observed that intellectuals were fulfilling a societal function previously served by religious leaders, even though these intellectuals did not always view science and religion to be compatible:
. . . however uninformed or unsympathetic these secular prophets may be concerning their religious counterparts, they clearly recognize the presence in their own work of religious motifs. Their predictions of “last things” generate the feelings of awe that have always surrounded eschatology, even if in this case the predictions often grow out of computer modelling rather than Biblical proof-texts.
For many, science has come to replace religion in its perceived ability to identify the root cause of our existential crisis and scientists have replaced religious leaders as holding the unique ability to offer guidance on how we must transform in order to stave off catastrophe:
Ironically, just as religious apocalyptic literature has begun to de-emphasize the natural world, the new secular literature has made it more prominent. By concentrating upon the capacity of human action to destabilize natural rhythms, the secular writers have made nature more important while acknowledging the potency of human act . . . The religionists’ transformation of the world, to be accomplished in the Last Days, would now occur gradually as the consequence human intervention. This confident, redemptionist view of science carried the corollary of the necessity and desirability of human mastery over the natural world — precisely the sin most uniformly attacked in the secular apocalyptic literature of today. Where this mastery over nature was once viewed as the road to greater happiness and fulfillment, it now appears to be the route to doomsday.
For the secular millenarian, extreme events — floods, hurricanes, fires — are more than mere portents, they are evidence of our sins of the past and provide opportunities for redemption in the future, if only we listen, accept and change:
Where the religious view regards events as signs, the secular position is far more apt to view them as direct causes: the future will occur because of actions taken in the past and the present, but the future may be changed by making different present choices. At one level, this shifts causal efficacy from an external deity to human beings. At another level, by opening the possibility that The End might be averted by timely action, the change introduces a measure of indeterminacy, as opposed to the fundamentalist emphasis upon inevitability. The opportunity for preventive action makes the secular scenarios appear more hopeful, because, in principle, destructive actions by human beings might be prevented — intentional acts might be forestalled by pointing out their likely consequences, while human error might be reduced by more closely monitoring the conduct of those in positions of responsibility. Nonetheless, this approach can only hold out the hope of minimizing risks, which leaves some ineradicable possibility of danger, because evil, ignorant, or inadvertent behavior can never be eliminated.
When we hear oft-quoted climate scientists warning that our calamitous times are the consequence of our misguided past actions and that the route to a different future is transformation — For instance, “urgency and agency” in the sloganeering of popular climate scientist Michael Mann, above. We can understand these dynamics as those of today’s priests of the secular apocalypse, explaining our predicament and offering the hope of salvation.
Barkun argues that secular apocalyptic worldviews are also compatible with a Manichean perspective on good and evil:
. . . secular apocalypticists tend to adopt two strategies. On the one hand, they may ascribe the suffering to the machinations of small but powerful groups, whose control of economic, military, or other resources permits them to place the fate of others in jeopardy. This view has the advantage of establishing a Manichean order, but it is, unfortunately, also a strategy that readily slides towards despair if the forces of good appear weak.
We’ve all heard the sermon — it is the fossil fuel companies, Republicans, the Koch Brothers, deniers and other shadowy forces who have conspired to thwart the climate movement for many decades. If only they could be defeated, transformation would occur and the apocalypse would be avoided.
Not surprisingly, the secular apocalypse is also interpreted as partly the consequence of ignorant or uncaring normal people, who have failed to heed the warnings of the experts. Despite the warnings, normal people continue to fly in planes, drive cars, eat hamburgers, use air conditioning and refuse to change:
On the other hand, world destruction may be viewed as the unintended consequence of human actions that are ill-informed, ill-timed, or inept. According to those who hold this view, the victims of world destruction are at least partially to blame for their fate, since had they behaved differently, they might have prevented it. The first position, the conspiratorial view, preserves the appearance of moral order by secularizing the Armageddon myth, in which good and evil contend, yet retains an element of indeterminacy not found in the religious version. The second position, ascribing inadequacies to the victims, attempts to reestablish moral order by implying that the suffering may not be wholly unmerited – the victims may somehow deserve their fate because they acted unwisely.
How might the contemporary New Apocalypticism evolve in the future? Barkun offers three possibilities:
One possibility, of course, is that either the religious or the secular apocalypticists are correct, and that history will indeed end within the lifetime of individuals now living.
We might indeed be in the latter stages of an existential climate crisis, fail to change and learn the end is nigh.
A second possibility, borne out in past instances of religious prediction, is that vague forecasts will give way to more precise predictions as expanding audiences seek the progressive reduction of ambiguity. Where this occurs the stage is set for prophetic disconfirmation, for a particular moment when a specific prediction is publicly discontinued, and the movement associated with it rapidly contracts to a hard-core of the most committed believers.
What happens when the world passes the 1.5 Celsius temperature target and the world does not end? Or then 2.0 C? On the other hand, there will always be sufficient numbers of extreme weather events across the planet to long sustain the idea that doom is just around the corner. Barkun explains that apocalyptic beliefs have been present in societies for centuries, and thus probably won’t be going away anytime soon.
A third possibility is that the number of believers may become so large that their very numbers and influence produce a fundamental change in the social order. The rise of Christianity during the late Roman Empire and the disillusionment of the Russian population immediately before the Russian Revolution are cases in point. Here, dire predictions can become, or can closely resemble, self-fulfilling prophesies.
This of course is the “all in” strategy of many climate activists — force the desired global transformation to happen and then take credit for the avoided Armageddon. I’ve argued that the global population crisis ended with a declaration of success with claims made that raising alarm saved billions from starvation — even though this view does not actually square with history. If we rapidly decarbonize, then the apocalypse will remain real, just unrealized — we already see this dynamic at play in discussions of the outdated RCP8.5 scenario.
Barkun’s 1983 essay is remarkable when read in the context of the 2023 climate movement. Climate change is of course real and important, but it is not (according to the IPCC) the apocalypse. The near-term future of climate policy will almost certainly be a struggle between pragmatism and the New Apocalypticism. How that turns out is anybody’s guess.
For those who have access here is the cite and link to Barkun’s remarkable essay:
I read today that a new RSV vaccine has just been approved by the FDA for expectant mothers. I know from previous articles I’ve written that an RSV vaccine for children is also on the fast track to get on the all-important childhood immunization schedule.
I’m sure we’ll all read about how RSV is one of the greatest killers of children … and thus we have yet another vaccine that’s a Godsend. (The above-linked Wall Street Journal story tells us approximately 300 children under the age of 5 die from RSV each year).
Who knows if this data is true or not?
Speaking for myself, I haven’t forgotten how the Covid vaccine was pushed with the the extremely-dubious assertion that Covid was one of the “Top 8” killers of children.
I knew that statement was brazen disinformation because I’d researched actual children’s mortality from Covid while writing this story for uncoverDC.com.
In this article, I simply highlighted the key findings from the “most comprehensive” study of its kind on Covid mortality among children. The study, produced by a team of prestigious academics in the UK, found that only 25 children in the entire UK died “from” Covid in the fist year of the pandemic.
However, the headline that should have gone viral to parents across the world is that only six “healthy” children in the entire UK died “from” Covid.
Today, I’m going to revisit the findings of that study as this might cause a few mothers to question the pronouncements of our so-called public health experts, none of whom have seen a vaccine they don’t want every child to get, regardless of how unnecessary or what the long-term negative health effects might be.
The study’s key information and findings …
Approximately 12 million children (age 0 to 17) live in the UK.
The UK researchers were able to look at hospital diagnostic codes and find out how many children died “from” or “with” Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic.
Here’s what study authors found and reported (CYP = “Children and Young Persons.”)
N = 61 – UK children who died in the first 12 months of the pandemic after testing positive via a PCR test.
Significantly, researchers subtracted 36 “Covid deaths” from this figure because they found these children actually died from some other cause. Language from the study:
“This is the first study to differentiate between CYP who have died of SARS-CoV-2 infection rather than died with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test as a coincidental finding. Our result is 60% lower than the figures derived from positive tests thereby markedly reducing the estimated number of CYP who are potentially at risk of death during this pandemic.”
N = 25 – UK children who actually died “from” Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic.
But researchers looked even harder and found that 19 of these 25 Covid victims suffered from severe “life-limiting” medical conditions.
N = 19 = Children who died from Covid but had other major medical issues.
Subtracting the deaths of children who suffered from serious co-morbid conditions left researchers with …
N = 6 – “Healthy” children in the UK who died from Covid in the fist 12 months of the pandemic.
I made some additional assumptions/extrapolations …
To be very conservative, I assumed that 500,000 children (approximately 4 percent of the UK’s children) do suffer from serious “life-limiting” medical conditions (the real percentage is no doubt lower than 1 percent).
This would give us …
N = 11.5 million – Approximate number of “healthy” children in the UK.
We can now calculate the mortality risk for healthy children in the UK.
Covid Mortality Math: Six (6) Covid deaths divided by 11.5 million “healthy” children = Covid mortality of 0.000052 percent.
According to this extremely thorough (albeit ignored) study, the odds a healthy UK child would die from Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic were 1-in-1.92 million. (Math: 11.5 million healthy children/6 Covid deaths).
I decided to do some politically-incorrect analysis …
To wander into politically incorrect territory, one can also calculate mortality risk by the race of children.
For some (undeniable) reason, Covid kills a much higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics. This is true with children and adults.
Here’s a story from April 2020that proves that the disproportionate deaths among African Americans was already known (even though the authors of this article suggest that the CDC was already covering up these racial statistics).
The authors of the UK study also point out the racial differences in mortality rates:
“CYP >10 years, of Asian and Black ethnic backgrounds, and with co-morbidities were over-represented compared to other children.”
The authors also stressed that the absolute numbers of minority children who died from Covid was also minute. Still, the figures are strikingly minute for white children.
From further extrapolations, I concluded that only two, perhaps three, healthy white children in the entire United Kingdom died “from” Covid in the first 12 months of the pandemic.
Since there are more than 10 million healthy white children in the UK, I concluded the chance a healthy white child would die from Covid were approximately 1-in-5 million. As a percentage, this mortality risk is 0.00002. (One has to go out to the fifth decimal point to find a “risk” that is not zero.)
Why I did this research …
One reason I embarked on this research is that I was simply trying to ascertain accurate Covid information to inform any decision I made on whether my two young children should get the Covid vaccine.
I was doing my own research and did not automatically trust the proclamations of the CDC or the pediatrician groups. I know I’m not supposed to question my betters (the experts), but I did it anyway because my own children’s lives might be at stake.
I happen to be Caucasian, just like my two children. Thankfully our children are healthy and do not suffer from some terrible “life-limiting” medical condition.
Again, I was simply looking to find the mortality risk of my own two children if they didn’t get this “vaccine.” Thanks to this bold study, I found the answer I was seeking.
The data shows that my children might indeed die from Covid … but if they did they would be the one person in a cohort of 4,999,999 children who did.
To provide a little context, the odds a random person would get struck by lightning in a given year are about 1-in-750,000. The odds I might hit the lottery jackpot in neighboring Georgia are probably 1-in-3-million.
Anyway, you won’t be surprised to learn that I chose to not get my children vaccinated.
For me, becoming an “anti-vaxxer” was a no-brainer especially when I know the odds my children might contract potentially fatal myocarditis (or other serious vaccine injuries) might be as low as 1-in-3,000 (perhaps lower).
(The headline from the above-linked article notes that cases of myocarditis from vaccines are “rare” in children. If “rare” = a “1-in-3,000 risk,” how should one label a “1-in-5-million” risk?)
Even today, I occasionally read that the risks to children from Covid is “rare” or “small” or not as high as for, say, very old people or the morbidly obese.
But that’s poor word-smithing – intentionally so in my opinion.
When the risk of death for the largest population of children in America is 1-in-5 million, maybe journalists should consider more accurate risk modifiers, such as:
“virtually non-existent” … “almost unheard of” … “the rarest of anomalies” … “certainly nothing for parents to worry about” …. “for all practical purposes … zero.”
Anyway, when I kept reading that Covid was the “Top 8” killer of children in America, my go-to thought was, “That’s what they say.”
I guess the same pediatrician groups and the UK’s version of the CDC were spreading the same fear-mongering COVID disinformation as in America.
I’m sure Catherine, Princess of Wales was worried to death about getting her children vaccinated because she knew that Covid was one of the “top 8 killers of children in the UK.”
It probably never occurred to the princess to ask, “six deaths is enough to make the Top 8?” (Actually, I’d bet 100 pounds Princess Kate, just like 99 percent of UK mothers, never saw this study.)
I’m tempted to finish this column by saying, “none of this matters.” The narrative – as bogus as it was – worked as intended. Hundreds of millions of parents rushed out to get children vaccines they didn’t need.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s 90-day probe into the origins of COVID-19 censored the input of intelligence agency scientists who concluded the virus was most likely genetically engineered. Sky News Australia‘s Sharri Markson has the story.
In May 2021, President Biden tasked the Intelligence Community with providing an assessment into how the pandemic began after reports, first published by Sky News, that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been hospitalised with Covid-like symptoms in November 2019 in the suspected first cluster of the pandemic.
When the report was published it concluded that most intelligence agencies assessed the virus, even if it had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was natural rather than manipulated in a laboratory.
Sky News can reveal that this was not the assessment made by the four groups within the intelligence agencies that actually engaged in scientific analysis, who concurred that there was either a highly likely or reasonable chance the virus was genetically engineered.
Scientists at the Defence Intelligence Agency’s National Centre for Medical Intelligence (DIA NCMI) had conducted rigorous research on the genomic sequence of the virus and firmly concluded that it was, most likely, a laboratory construct.
In a world exclusive, Sky News can for the first time reveal their story, their research and their discoveries about SARS-CoV-2.
They had been working with the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction unit, until the co-operation between the two agencies was blocked, with a director at the Defence Intelligence Agency claiming the FBI was “off the reservation” on the topic of the origins of COVID-19.
Well-placed sources familiar with the work that unfolded inside the intelligence agency and their interactions with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the 90-day probe spoke to Sky News for this investigation.
Their internal research at the Pentagon-based agency led to a finding that was described internally as a “smoking gun”.
One of the scientists discovered that the size and location of a fragment of COVID-19 resembled the same fragment in Wuhan Institute of Virology research from more than a decade earlier, in 2008. It was the same technique that the WIV had used in grant applications to make chimeric viruses.
“This paper is the smoking gun of everything. When the team reviewed this data, they thought ‘This is created in the lab. It’s a reverse genetics construct,” a source said.
But their input into the 90-day origins probe was censored.
Sources close to the inquiry estimated about 90% of the DIA NCMI edits were deleted, censored or simply weren’t included.
They [NCMI scientists Robert Greg Cutlip, Jean-Paul Chretien and John Hardham] wrote an unclassified working paper, dated May 26th 2020, titled ‘Critical Analysis of Anderson et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2′. Their paper was circulated within the NCMI and among multiple scientists within the intelligence community. It was also intended for wider publication, so that the public could have a greater understanding of the new virus sweeping the globe. But it was never allowed to be disseminated more broadly, in yet another cover-up of scientists who questioned the natural origins narrative perpetuated by senior officials.
The report was scathing of the Proximal Origin authors’ claim that COVID-19 had a natural origin.
“We consider the evidence they present and find that it does not prove that the virus arose naturally. In fact, the features of SARS-CoV-2 noted by Anderson et al. are consistent with another scenario: that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a laboratory, by methods that leading coronavirus researchers commonly use to investigate how the viruses infect cells and cause disease, assess the potential for animal coronaviruses to jump to humans, and develop drugs and vaccines.”
While Kristian Anderson and the other authors that the “high-affinity binding ofthe SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2”, Chretien, Cutlip and Hardham disagreed.
“This is not a scientific argument but rather an assumption of intent and methodology for a hypothesised scientist,” they wrote.
“Instead of aiming to design a virus that binds with high affinity to ACE2, a researcher may have chosen to investigate, empirically, the effect of one or more receptor binding domain variants on receptor binding or infectivity.
“In fact, leading coronavirus research laboratories have been doing this for years to study the potential for bat coronaviruses to infect humans.”
The paper then provides examples of where these experiments happened at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“In the context of this research, SARS-CoV-2 could have been synthesised by combining a backbone from a coronavirus similar to RaTG13 with the receptor binding domain of a coronavirus similar to the one recently isolated from pangolins. Such research might have aimed to investigate pangolins as possible intermediate hosts for bat coronaviruses potentially pathogenic for humans, and would have been consistent with the longstanding line of investigations described above.”
Chretien, Cutlip and Hardham also disagreed with Anderson et al.’s argument that there was no known progenitor virus that could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
“However, the absence of a publication does not mean that the research was not done,” they wrote. Perhaps the experiments were aborted or not reported because of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak? Perhaps the results were never intended for publication?
“In a recent example of delayed publication from the COVID-19 pandemic, WIV researchers first reported RaTG13 in January 2020, but later stated that they had discovered the virus in 2013. The possibility of the SARS-CoV-2 furin site arising during passage in thelaboratory cannot be dismissed.”
The esteemed authors go on to say that “laboratories also have directly inserted furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses”.
They cite several examples including the Shi Zhengli gain-of-function experiment with the University of North Carolina.
Their paper concludes that the Proximal Origin authors’ arguments “are based not on scientific analysis, but on unwarranted assumptions”.
“A long line of research shows that leading coronavirus laboratories do not work as described in the laboratory-origin scenario Anderson et al. consider and dismiss. SARS-CoV-2 – a bat coronavirus with pangolin coronavirus receptor binding domain – is consistent with the chimeric constructs these laboratories have developed and studied for more than a decade.
“We highlight the features of SARS-CoV-2, noted by Anderson et al,. are consistent with longstanding and ongoing laboratory experiments; the evidence Anderson et al. present does not lessen the plausibility of laboratory origin.”
Following this the group continued to work on the virus.
By June 2020, their genomic analysis of amino acids and nucleotides was producing fairly conclusive findings that COVID-19 was genetically engineered.
While their recommendations and working products are highly technical, there are four main reasons for why they found that SARS-CoV-2 was most likely genetically engineered.
They thought perhaps the backbone was related to the virus miners in Mojiang, China, caught in 2012 and had been modified.
Then came the discovery that was described internally as the smoking gun. The majority of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome is similar to bat coronaviruses. However, a small region of the spike gene, encoding the spike protein’s receptor binding domain (RBD), is identical to that of the pangolin coronavirus MP789.
Hardham reported to NCMI that the size and location of the pangolin fragment in SARS-CoV-2 was similar to the same RBD fragment described in one of Wuhan institute’s previous research publications.
In a 2008 paper by Shi Zhengli and Ren Wuze, the Wuhan researchers identified the minimal cassette that would be necessary to change the binding to different host ACE2 receptors – this refers to how the virus crosses from species to species.
Once the Wuhan researchers identified the minimal RBD cassette, they proposed using this same technique in their future work – including in grant proposals sent to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
This same technique (minimal cassette) is found in SARS-CoV-2.
They also found scientific papers in which Shi Zhengli, who had worked at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, described working with furin cleavage sites in the precise location where they appeared in SARS-CoV-2. “Shi helped research furin cleavage sites in the Netherlands laboratory that are very similar to SARS-CoV-2,” sources close to the inquiry told the Australian.
“This paper is the smoking gun of everything. Figure 7 is literally the description of the pangolin RBD insert. When the team reviewed this data, they thought ‘This is created in the lab. It’s a reverse genetics construct.’ They identified the minimal cassette required to change the host range.”
The NCMI researchers shared their findings among scientific elements of the intelligence community, and their colleagues concurred.
Over the next year, their work and analysis continued, drawing in and involving other scientists from separate units, including the Institute for Advanced Technologies in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Their findings were shared and discussed with scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the CIA, the FBI’s weapons of mass destruction unit and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.
The Australian understands that the scientists generally concurred that the virus was most likely genetically engineered.
“We briefed everyone on these findings. We were in alignment,” sources close to the inquiry said. “All four of the scientific groups concurred it was not a natural virus.”
But, on July 7th 2021, the group was blocked from sharing other findings with the FBI.
A director at NCMI is understood to have instructed them: “You may not speak with the FBI WMD anymore. They are off the reservation on this.”
It’s worth wondering why these stunning scientific conclusions from within the U.S. intelligence community – which are at odds with the official statements from U.S. intelligence officials throughout the pandemic – are being released now. This must have been authorised, and Markson’s source, as before, is likely to be Robert Kadlec, the U.S. biodefence chief who has always pushed the lab leak theory, though appears to have been overruled on this for much of the pandemic. Why this is all being aired now is not entirely clear, though it is clear that Biden is being blamed for the censorship and cover-up, despite the fact that it pre-dated his presidency. Are the intelligence agencies turning on Biden?
The 2008 “smoking gun” paper for a WIV origin is intriguing, though the basic issue with a WIV origin remains: if Shi Zhengli realised it was from her lab, why did she publish a paper in mid-January 2020 comparing SARS-CoV-2 to RaTG13 and stating the former did not appear to have emerged naturally from the latter, casting immediate suspicion over her lab’s research? Perhaps she was just trying to show that similar viruses exist in the wild. But then there’s the question of why China spent weeks not taking any measures against the spread if it secretly knew or suspected it was an escaped experimental virus engineered to be more contagious. Conversely, there’s the weird foreknowledge of U.S. intelligence, sources from which claimed to be following the outbreak in China in mid-November 2019, before it was detectable.
While there is clearly a renewed push from elements within U.S. intelligence on the lab leak theory, questions remain.
The US has already committed over $110 billion in military and economic support to Ukraine, with President Joe Biden recently asking Congress for $24 billion in additional cash. Washington’s allies have sent tens of billions of dollars more in aid, with Ukraine quickly becoming the most expensive NATO-instigated security crisis since Afghanistan.
The costs of the geopolitical, military, and economic quagmire which the Biden administration unleashed in Ukraine will continue to steadily rise even if peace were to break out tomorrow, and American taxpayers are expected to largely foot the bill.
That’s the conclusion of an independent economic analysis put out this week by a senior fellow from the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute, a pair of Washington, DC and Maryland-based think tanks.
The analysis takes into account the World Bank’s March 2023 estimate that Ukraine will require some $411 billion in reconstruction support over the coming decade, plus whatever additional expenses may have arisen between then and now, with the analysis giving an overall ballpark figure of $600 billion+ in total expenses.
The analysis compared these ballooning costs to the $60 billion the US spent on Iraqi reconstruction after the 2003 invasion, plus the $90 billion spent in Afghanistan for reconstruction purposes during the 20-year US-led war and occupation of that country, which culminated in the collapse of the Afghan government and its NATO-trained military almost immediately after Washington withdrew its support in 2021.
“There is no doubt that most of the US assistance to Afghanistan was probably stolen or went over to the Taliban…In the case of Iraq, most of the aid was wasted thanks to bad management, corruption and poor planning,” the report noted. “The US and its allies will need to cough up $60 billion annually to support Ukraine, and expect that a lot of it will be stolen. It will have to keep the funding up for 10 years,” the analysis added.
Citing waning support for continuing the proxy war against Russia from key allies including Germany and Britain, the report expects the US to have to cough up most of the cash. Accordingly, the analysis doesn’t rule out that the Biden administration may be deliberately seeking to prolong the military crisis as long as possible to put off committing reconstruction aid, particularly as a growing majority of Americans, including several major presidential candidates, no longer want to continue endlessly funding the conflict, or the Volodymyr Zelensky government.
Ultimately, the analysis expects Ukraine to become “the most costly” reconstruction operation ever conducted by the US, pointing out that by comparison, the US Marshall Plan reconstruction campaign in Europe after World War II cost “just” $13.3 billion (or $173 billion in today’s dollars, accounting for inflation).
Questions have swirled for months surrounding Ukraine’s post-conflict economic future, with the nation’s gross external debt continuing to mount, and some observers fearing the country will be “crippled” by the debt it owes to the International Monetary Fund and other institutions over the long term. The tremendous interest US hedge fund giants like BlackRock have shown in Ukraine’s fertile black earth soil, as well as the country’s untapped rare earth mineral deposits, has also sparked concerns that Kiev might come out of the present crisis as a full-on economic neo-colony of the United States and its allies.
Scientists are developing a proprietary “early warning system” — powered by CRISPR gene-editing technology — to “detect and characterize deadly pathogens” in Africa “before they spread across the globe,” STAT News reported.
The surveillance system — dubbed Sentinel — was launched with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others. It uses “participatory” digital health tools developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.
Sabeti is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader, Harvard professor and director of the Broad Institute’s Sabeti Lab. Happi is a professor of molecular biology and genomics at Redeemer’s University in Nigeria, an adjunct professor of immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard and director of the African Centre of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases (ACEGID), a genomic research institute focused on Africa, which he co-founded with Sabeti in Nigeria.
Sentinel aims to use rapid testing at “points-of-care” — anywhere tests can be administered, including non-clinical settings — across rural Africa to identify and genetically sequence pathogens. Then researchers will use cloud-based technology to share that information across the public health information sphere.
Global public health researchers can then track and predict “threats” and use that information to rapidly develop new diagnostics and vaccines — what the researchers call a “virtuous cycle,” according to a 2021 paper published in Viruses by the developers.
The Sentinel project was officially launched in 2020 with funding from TED’s Audacious Project, backed by Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife MacKenzie Scott, Open Philanthropy, the Skoll Foundation and the Gates Foundation.
But DARPA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Wellcome Trust and others funded the development of the CRISPR technology the project will use to detect pathogenic threats.
“They fully intend to use synthetic biology to research, develop and test biological warfare weapons. That’s DARPA’s motivation for funding this.
“It fits in with Predict and its successor, also funded by USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development], which is a front organization for the CIA, to go out into the world and find every exotic disease, fungus, toxin, virus they possibly can and bring them back here and then weaponize them in their BSL3 [biosafety level 3] and BSL4 labs.”
According to Boyle, the Broad Institute is one of the country’s leading DARPA-funded synthetic biology research centers.
Happi and Sabeti officially launched Sentinel in West Africa one month before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. By early February 2020, they were using it to deploy COVID-19 rapid testing and genomic sequencing in hospitals across Sierra Leone, Senegal and Nigeria — before anywhere in the U.S. was doing so, STAT reported.
“Experts” told STAT that Africa is a “hot spot for emerging infectious diseases” because the existing system of disease surveillance is too centralized and top-down.
Happi and Sabeti aim to change that, they said, by making disease surveillance “bottom-up” — getting “everyday Africans” and community frontline workers working as “sentinels” to surveil their friends and communities for diseases.
They said their project can change how disease surveillance works globally. “Everybody in the world should be a sentinel, a sentinel not only for his own immediate community, for his own country — but a sentinel for the globe,” said Happi.
‘Very wealthy people have figured out how they can get extremely rich from this’
The developers said the Sentinel program is needed because viruses can mutate at any time to become pandemic threats, and this system is designed to find them early.
Sabeti described the work in a video tweeted last year by Bill Gates.
Sentinel is designed to identify pathogens at the most localized level possible and then disperse diagnostic and genomic information as quickly as possible to public health officials and researchers designing treatments, vaccines and new tests.
Clinicians or others are meant to administer “point-of-care” tests that use CRISPR gene-editing technology, which turns gene editors into pathogen detectors through different techniques, some of which are still in development.
Sentinel’s first line of intervention is the SHINE (SHERLOCK and HUDSON Integration to Navigate Epidemics) diagnostic tool, easily administered at almost any location. It tests blood or urine samples and reveals the results on a piece of paper without any high-tech equipment.
Happi told STAT that administering the test is like “doing a PCR on a sheet of paper” and that it is so simple that his grandmother could do it in her village.
But SHINE — an improvement on Sabeti’s earlier Specific High-sensitivity Enzymatic Reporter UnLOCKing, or SHERLOCK test — can test for only one pathogen at a time.
If that test fails to detect anything, Sentinel researchers launch their next-level test, CARMEN (Combinatorial Arrayed Reactions for Multiplexed Evaluation of Nucleic acids), which can screen for up to 16 pathogens at a time and must be implemented at a nearby rural hospital.
Research on the CARMEN technique was funded by DARPA, NIH, and Wellcome and published in Nature in 2020.
If CARMEN fails, the sample is “escalated” to a regional genomics hub, where every virus in the sample, “known or unknown,” is sequenced.
Researchers can use those sequences to quickly make new diagnostic tests for the newly identified pathogens, STAT reported.
The data collected through Sentinel is shared across healthcare clinics and public health officials’ proprietary mobile apps and cloud-based reporting systems developed by Dimagi — a Gates Foundation-funded for-profit tech company that targets low-income communities — and Fathom — a for-profit software developer funded by Sabeti labs.
Sabeti filed patents for the technology and co-founded a biotech startup, Sherlock Biosciences, to commercialize these tests for use in the U.S.
Sherlock also has startup funding from the Gates Foundation, Open Philanthropy and a number of other biotech venture capitalist companies.
With funding from DARPA, Battelle National Biodefense Institute, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the NIH and others, the Broad Institute and Princeton University researchers also used SHINE to create a rapid test for COVID-19.
Sabeti sits on the board and serves as a shareholder of the Danaher corporation, which develops research tools determining the causes of disease and identifies new therapies and tests of drugs and vaccines.
Happi also collaborates with the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute and bioengineering firm Ginkgo Bioworks to deploy Ginko’s automation technologies to his lab to sequence genomes.
But Sabeti told STAT that providing people with access to testing is her true priority. And she is on the board of a nonprofit that will work to send the tests her new company makes to low- and middle-income countries “at cost.”
Sentinel’s real contribution, Sabeti said, is its focus on “empowerment.”
Sabeti and Happi are currently field testing SHINE and CARMEN. In the process, they are training scientists in genomic surveillance and collecting hundreds of thousands of genomes.
STAT didn’t specify whether those are virus genomes or people’s genomes, but Boyle said the testing would make it possible to also collect the genomes of African people, which he said is a form of biopiracy.
Other notable collaborators on the 2021 Viruses paper that helped publicly launch Sentinel include Scripps Research Institute virologist Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., co-author of the now infamous Nature “Proximal Origins” paper used to promote the theory that COVID-19 evolved in nature. Andersen’s private communications later revealed he suspected a segment of the SARS-CoV-2 genome may have been engineered in a lab.
Examples of conflicts of interest among the Virus paper’s co-authors also include Anthony Philippakis, M.D., Ph.D., a venture partner at Google Ventures; Jonathan Jackson, CEO of Dimagi; and Robert Garry, Ph.D., Matthew L. Boisen, Ph.D., and Luis M. Branco, Ph.D., who all work for Zalgen Labs, a “biotechnology company developing countermeasures to emerging viruses.”
Garry also co-authored the “Proximal Origins” paper.
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health, told The Defender the Sentinel program reflected a broader problem with global public health priorities.
“Public health has become a for-profit industry that’s very, very lucrative,” Bell said. As a result, the field no longer works to provide people with better economies, sanitation, nutrition, access to basic medicines and research on major endemic infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and malaria.
Instead, research funding is diverted to “pandemic preparedness,” diseases that kill relatively few people.
Bell said:
“We’ve got to a point where very wealthy people have figured out how they can get extremely rich from this and they have enough money to completely control the agenda. So now they essentially control the agenda of global health.
“So you don’t hear much about sanitation and nutrition any more because that’s not where the people who are running the agenda can make their money.”
What they’re doing is not “intrinsically bad,” Bell said. “The question is whether it is proportionate to the need or is it a diversion of resources that in doing so will cause a net harm? And that’s a question that people won’t talk about.”
Sabeti, Happi and Broad Institute at forefront of viral hemorrhagic research in Africa for years
Sabeti, Happi and the Broad Institute have also been at the forefront of viral hemorrhagic fever research in Africa, including Lassa virus and Ebola.
Andersen, Garry, Sabeti and Happi all serve on the board of the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium (VHFC), founded in 2010 with funding from the NIH, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Tulane University.
Sabeti and Happi began working together in 2008, studying the virus that causes a viral hemorrhagic fever known as Lassa fever, which infects hundreds of thousands — most of whom recover — and kills about 5,000 people globally per year, according to recent estimates. Lassa fever is considered a category A (most dangerous) bioterror threat.
The Viruses paper provides an account of Sabeti and Happi’s work on Lassa. By mapping human genomic variation in West Africa, they found the Lassa virus existed for half a millennia there, but had gone undetected because people had developed genetic resistance to it.
And many people with Lassa were being misdiagnosed because they had nonspecific symptoms.
This work led them to an epiphany moment — “the realization that in many parts of the world, we are largely blind both to the prevalence of known infectious diseases and to the appearance of new threats,” the paper said.
By developing better diagnostic tools for local healthcare workers, the paper concluded, diseases can be detected and better treatments and vaccines and then even better diagnostic tools can be created, “instead of awaiting the next outbreak.”
Lassa virus is a BSL4 pathogen, the paper notes — although in West Africa it is studied at a research facility without that safety level — and it makes a plug for BSL4 research in Africa.
“With increased globalization and an ever-expanding human population, the need for large-scale research initiatives on BSL-4 pathogens remains acute,” it says.
“Further, as only one BSL-4 lab exists in the entire region of West Africa … even today, transnational partnerships are critical to allow ongoing investigation of BSL-4 pathogen samples.”
Their work on Lassa led the researchers to begin developing a broader surveillance model and then to establish ACEGID at Redeemer University with support from Tulane, the NIH and the World Bank.
ACEGID then, according to the article, played a key role during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which happened just as ACEGID was launched in March of that year.
Happi’s team identified the first case of Ebola in Nigeria and sequenced the genome of the Ebola virus in 2014, it said.
The mainstream press reported that the 2014 Ebola outbreak — which claimed 11,000 lives in West Africa — came from a two-year-old boy in Guinea playing in a bat-infested tree stump.
But U.S. Right to Know reported that independent evidence and phylogenetic analysis cast doubt on that narrative.
Chernoh Bah, an independent journalist and historian from Sierra Leone, reported errors in the established narrative identified through his interviews.
Research by investigative journalist Sam Husseini and virologist Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., built on Bah’s research and pointed to a leak at the U.S. government-supported research laboratory in Kenema, Sierra Leone, where the VHFC was doing research on Ebola and Lassa.
An article co-authored by VHFC’s Sabeti, Happi, Andersen and dozens of others published in Science argued that the Ebola outbreak had a zoonotic origin in Central Africa.
Happi’s lab also sequenced the Lassa virus in a 2018 outbreak.
According to an article in Nature, Happi’s sequencing also provided evidence that the Lassa outbreak had a zoonotic origin, rather than being from a mutation that made the disease more transmissible.
The Viruses paper said the success of ACEGID in addressing the Ebola crisis, along with its work on Lassa, laid the groundwork for Sentinel, launched just a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Given that history, Boyle said:
“I wouldn’t trust anything Sabeti’s doing. And I’d be very skeptical of any claims that are being made [about Sentinel] given the involvement of DARPA, the involvement of Broad and Broad’s previous involvement at that Kenema lab with the outbreak of the Ebola pandemic.”
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 World Economic Forum has been on a tear lately! A recent article in the New York Times (paywall-free link) by a senior WEF agenda contributor, Adam Grant, a Wharton management expert and an adviser to Bill Gates, says, “Elections are Bad for Democracy.”
In the United States, any private citizen can publish any opinion on their web page or social network timeline. However, Mr. Grant is not an ordinary private person; he is a WEF contributor who participated in numerous WEF functions and authored many agenda-setting articles. He is also an adviser to Google and Bill Gates.
Far from obscure is the venue that gave him a platform to be heard: The New York Times is the foremost “newspaper of record,” which used to be the most respected publication many years ago.
Who is Adam Grant? The New York Timesforgot to mention that he is a very senior member of the WEF. Here’s his World Economic Forum page:
Adam Grant is a prolific WEF author, with posts too many to list individually.
You Are Too Dumb to Vote, Adam Grant Explains
Officials have been working hard to safeguard elections and assure citizens of their integrity. But if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.
If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?
Mr. Grant advocates “randomly selecting” officials from a “pool of candidates.”
Who forms the pool of candidates? Who is admitted to the “pool”? Mr. Grant is vague on this question, but we can take a guess. The pool would be formed by the no-longer-elected “guardians of our democracy”; only the people acceptable to them would be allowed to be randomly selected.
Indeed, Mr Grant explains that those seeking to enter the “pool” would need to be vetted:
In America, imagine that anyone who wants to enter the pool has to pass a civics test — the same standard as immigrants applying for citizenship.
I am sure those who do not believe the WEF-promoted ideologies would be ineligible for the pool and unable to pass the civics test. We do not want doubters to undermine our democracy, after all! (Note the sarcasm)
If you, my dear reader, wonder who will ensure that “random selection” is truly random, you are not alone!
Mr. Grant is a senior adviser to the Department of Defense, Google, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So please take him seriously, as do the organizations above who take his advice. He means it.
Just imagine the savings, Grant says:
Switching to sortition would save a lot of money too. The 2020 elections alone cost upward of $14 billion. And if there’s no campaign, there are no special interests offering to help pay for it.
Surely, we can save a lot of money if dirty peons like you and me are not allowed to vote!
The WEF is Serious About Abolishing Voting
Is the above a weird individual opinion only? Not quite!
In this video, Klaus Schwab discusses the idea of using a “prescriptive mode” to form the will of the electorate and do without elections:
The WEF views political systems with competing political parties as “toxic” and discusses “detoxifying politics,” understood as getting rid of party competition:
The “Well-being Alliance,” another organization forming the WEF’s agenda, also suggests going away from “party politics”:
I discussed the Wellbeing Alliance, its Marxian ideology, and its relationship with the WEF here.
The above well-being agenda is already being implemented in eight countries, as discussed in the article above.
These radicals envision a future “free of party politics,” with “detoxified” discourse, and with leaders selected from a pool of WEF-approved candidates. The discourse will be free of undesirable misinformation, even if the unwanted misinformation is true.
The regular peons, like you and me, do not deserve a voice because we are considered “toxic” and incompetent to select our future glorious leaders. The WEF knows better!
Previously I argued whether Saudi Arabia’s repeated involvements in U.S. interventions and wars stem from free national will or in response to a specific condition. For starters, in Saudi Arabia there is no national will. In Saudi Arabia, the national will is the will of the Al Saud clan. Still, when a major Arab state allies itself with a superpower that committed unspeakable crimes against humanity in almost every Arab country, then something is wrong. This fact alone should compel us to examine the U.S.-Saudi relation for one exceptional reason. As a result of the U.S.-Saudi wars, hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia have lost their lives. Millions became displaced in their own homelands. And millions more rendered refugees.
Attributing the Saudi policies to the bonds of “partnership” with the U.S. is frivolous. There are no bonds between these two thugs except those of business, military deals, secret plots, and wars. Proving this point, bonds such as these have no space for the American and Saudi peoples to share significant cultural or societal exchanges. If partnership is not the reason for the Saudi contribution to the U.S. strategy of empire and imperialism, then another reason must exist.
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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 