Walmart, Costco, Albertsons, Kroger, Ahold, Aldi, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, H-E-B, Hy-Vee, Sprouts, Giant Eagle, Meijer and Target have affirmed their commitment to not sell genetically engineered AquAdvantage® salmon ahead of AquaBounty Technologies planned first-ever harvest and commercial sales in the U.S., planned for this fall.
The news comes following the court hearing last week, in which a federal judge in California looked poised to rule in favor of environmental groups afraid of GMO salmon’s potential to blunt wild salmon populations, thus blocking the FDA’s approval of the fish.
Friends of the Earth released an updated list Tuesday of 80 grocery retailers, seafood companies, food service companies and restaurants with more than 18,000 locations nationwide that have stated that they will not sell genetically engineered salmon, demonstrating a widespread market rejection of the first commercial offerings of the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption in the U.S.
This is not new. Part of the plan. Remember Kissinger’s infamous quote about controlling food equaling controlling populations. That’s what they’re about right now with their plandemics and push to get jabbed. It’s not about your health people. This surely illustrates it. They have some lame conservation climate rationale which I wouldn’t buy one bar of. Watch the Ice Age Farmer (possibly still on Youtube) who reports on these scenarios regularly, if not on YT you will find him likely at one of the other censor free channels like Bitchute… EWR
Dr. Lee Merritt completed an Orthopaedic Surgery Residency in the United States Navy and served 9 years as a Navy physician and surgeon where she also studied bioweapons before returning to Rochester, where she was the only woman to be appointed as the Louis A. Goldstein Fellow of Spinal Surgery.
Dr. Merritt has been in the private practice of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery since 1995, has served on the Board of the Arizona Medical Association, and is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The Center for Rural Development is launching a new training course to teach Joe Biden’s vaccine “brownshirts” how to “isolat[e] and quarantine” a “large portion of a local rural population.”
Listed as MGT 433 in the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) course catalog, the eight-hour class is designed to provide both public- and private-sector emergency managers, community policymakers, public health and public safety personnel with “the general knowledge necessary to begin planning for situations requiring the isolation and quarantine of a large portion of a local, rural population.”
The Council of the District of Columbia disempowered parents by enacting a law that made it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father
The law denies basic parental rights to protecting their child from vaccine injuries and to have the tools and knowledge necessary to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment
It also violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority
Additionally, it violates informed consent rights of both parents and their child while doctors, other vaccinators and anyone else involved in the vaccine decision have no liability if the child is injured
If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal to stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state
This past year, we have seen many lawmakers in the U.S. and other countries vote to eliminate or severely restrict civil liberties in the name of the public health.1,2,3 One of the most outrageous legislative actions violating parental and human rights took place in Washington, D.C., in November 2020 when city council officials gave doctors the power to vaccinate children as young as 11 years old and hide what they did from parents.4,5,6,7,8
The D.C. mayor refused to veto the bill9,10 and, in January 2021, the U.S. Congress sat on its hands11,12 and gave tacit approval to enactment of the most dangerous child vaccination law in America.
The public pressure for people to get the COVID-19 injections is in full swing right now, as those who wanted these shots and have already taken them voluntarily are quickly dwindling down.
The first court case challenging employers who are mandating these shots as a condition for employment in Texas went the way of Big Pharma and government, as the judge ruled that people still have a choice – they can choose to refuse the shots and look for employment elsewhere. See:
In addition to employers, many schools now are also moving towards mandatory COVID-19 injections as a condition for enrollment.
The question everyone needs to ask themselves these days when faced with these mandates is how much do you value your job or school? Enough to potentially give up your life or become permanently disabled?
A rant by youtuber Jericho Green. He raises the very valid point that there’s been nary a mention of how to live healthy and enhance your immune system. This door to door scenario is already taking place in various places. From the UK andAustralia we’ve seen images of military & ‘health’ people wanting to see if you’ve been jabbed or not. Biden now talking door to door. India, people chased down and jabbedagainst their will. US, mentally disabled, same, chased down by Police and ‘health’ teams, forcibly jabbed. Distressing indeed to watch. NZ, Hipkins is coming for you, chasing up all those who ‘missed their appointments’ whilst Jacinda said the jabs wouldn’t be mandatory. Everywhere the inference is you ‘must be jabbed’.
• Pentagon’s Excess Property Program (1033 Program) has supplied police departments across the country with more than $4.3 billion in gear since 1997. This includes $449 million in 2013.
• St. Louis County, where Ferguson is located, received two military vehicles, a trailer, a generator, 12 5.56-millimeter rifles and six .45 caliber pistols from the Pentagon.
• Military style police raids have increased in recent years, with one count putting the number at 80,000 such raids last year.
• In SWAT style raids, people of color are most affected – 37% were Black, 12% Latino, and 19% White. Race was not known for the remainder.
Police militarization grew out of our failed drug war. Does a town of 2,200 need a massive military tank? Why does the police department in Dundee Michigan need a MRAP (Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicle)? They don’t. Military grade gear does not improve the safety and security in small towns. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel must end the flow of military grade gear from the Pentagon to our local communities. It’s time for the militarizing of police to end.
Last month, protests in Ferguson, MO turned violent after police showed up in full SWAT gear after fellow officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. But Ferguson isn’t the only community receiving military grade weaponry from the Pentagon.
We need to roll back programs 1033, 1122, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri will chair a subcommittee hearing tomorrow on Capitol Hill looking into police militarization.
Distraught people who trusted the system. As I’ve noticed myself listening to the many videos & reports by innocent folk who lined up trustingly to take the shot that would protect them so they could travel and return to normal, let down & betrayed by the system. Folks they are not promising you’ll be protected at all. The best they can do is mitigate symptoms. And the vaxxed are getting the CV anyway. Proceed at your own risk. At least read the evidence. The dismayed folk called us conspiracy theorists and even scoffed and mocked us. Now they pay, sometimes with their very lives. Please do listen to the warnings. And read. Read the very real evidence that we now have to look at. Ask yourself why do they not want you seeing VAERS?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent nearly US$6 billion over the past 17 years trying to improve agriculture, mainly in Africa. This is a lot of money for an underfunded sector, and, as such, carries great weight. To better understand how the Gates Foundation is shaping the global agriculture agenda, GRAIN analysed all the food and agriculture grants the foundation has made up until 2020.
We found that, while the Foundation’s grants focus on African farmers, the vast majority of its funding goes to groups in North America and Europe. The grants are also heavily skewed to technologies developed by research centres and corporations in the North for poor farmers in the South, completely ignoring the knowledge, technologies and biodiversity that these farmers already possess.
Also, despite the Foundation’s focus on techno-fixes, much of its grants are given to groups that lobby on behalf of industrial farming and undermine alternatives. This is bad for African farmers and bad for the planet. It is time to pull the plug on the Gates’ outsized influence over global agriculture.
In 2014 GRAIN published a detailed breakdown of the grants made by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote agricultural development in Africa and other parts of the world.1 Our main conclusion then was that the vast majority of those grants were channelled to groups in the US and Europe, not Africa nor other parts of the global South. The funding overwhelmingly went to research institutes rather than farmers. They were also mainly directed at shaping policies to support industrial farming, not smallholders.
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.
One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.
Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.
Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6
Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7
Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.
(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)
Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.
Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.
Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored
If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.
Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.
His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14
But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?
What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’
The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised
The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16
As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.
In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.
The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.
The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22
Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
As noted by the FLCCC:23
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.
This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death
The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”
The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome
The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.
Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.
Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.
While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.
A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
Its official, the National Strategy For Countering Domestic Terrorism has been released. We prefer to call in the ‘4 Pillars to Tyranny’ or ‘Biden’s America Terrorist Hit List’…and yes, you’re on it! We will go through the entire document to show you how the gray up ‘violence’ with ‘political dissent’ to assure this Dragnet catches each and every one of us.
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) today filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama requesting a temporary restraining order against the emergency use authorization (EUA) permitting using the COVID-19 vaccines in children under the age of 16, and that no further expansion of the EUAs to children under the age of 16 be granted prior to the resolution of these issues at trial.
The case will challenge the EUAs for the injections on several counts, based on the law and scientific evidence that the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and that numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and foisting these injections on the American people.
AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold spoke about the reasons for filing the motion: “We doctors are pro-vaccine, but this is not a vaccine,” she said. “This is an experimental biological agent whose harms are well-documented (although suppressed and censored) and growing rapidly, and we will not support using America’s children as guinea pigs.”
A five-month-old baby has tragically died after becoming seriously ill within hours of his mother receiving a dose of the experimental Pfizer / BioNTech Covid vaccine.
The incident was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System (the USA’s version of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme in the UK) on the 4th April by the clinician who had attempted to save the life of the baby just a couple of weeks earlier.
Click on the link to listen…
VAERS: Two-year-old baby in Virginia dead six days after second experimental Pfizer mRNA shot
STOWMARKET, SUFFOLK — Mr. Jack Last had a pilot license, traveled everywhere from New Zealand to Antarctica, and was a scuba diver. His life was tragically cut short because of yet another coincidence.
Mr. Last received the experimental AstraZeneca viral vector shot on March 30, according to The Sun U.K. He suffered from excruciating headaches thereafter, which forced him to check into A&E at West Suffolk Hospital on April 9. His condition worsened, prompting doctors to transfer him to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. But they could do nothing to save the “fit and healthy” young man, as described by his family. He died on April 20. // Click on the link for the rest.
Washington (CNN)Nearly 40% of US Marines are declining Covid-19 vaccinations, according to data provided to CNN on Friday by the service, the first branch to disclose service-wide numbers on acceptance and declination. As of Thursday, approximately 75,500 Marines have received vaccines, including fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated service men and women. About 48,000 Marines have chosen not to receive vaccines, for a declination rate of 38.9%. CNN has reached out to the other services for acceptance and declination rates.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
The Great Barrington Declaration – “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
Many of the NBA’s top players are expressing apprehension about accepting invitations to participate in league-sponsored public service announcements to bolster broader acceptance of the coronavirus vaccine, sources told ESPN.
The nation’s fifth-largest school district, in Clark County, Nevada, is opening back up after 18 students committed suicide during the pandemic shutdown.
Administrators of the system, of which Las Vegas is a part, said they’d also had another “3,100 alerts of suicide risks or students in need of support through the district’s mental health monitoring system.”
Students deemed high-risk will first be evaluated and invited back to in-person learning based on their academic and social-emotional needs, Bakersfield Now reported. The New York Times also did a story on the deaths. “When we started to see the uptick in children taking their lives, we knew it wasn’t just the COVID numbers we need to look at anymore,” Clark County Superintendent Jesus Jara told The Times.
A surge in youth suicides has been seen across the U.S. Some schools, like those in Las Vegas, have been closed more than a year.
There are 4 million employees in the federal government, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the Nation Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tops them out at $419,608 a year as of 2019. Fauci even makes more than the president.
That means that, within the next three years he will have raked in $2.5 million since 2019 — and more if he gets a raise. Fauci has been at the NIH since 1968, and presiding as director since 1984. While most federal salaries have a cap on them, Fauci’s is an exception.
So no matter what they are telling you, those 26,000 Federal troops are not there for your safety. Instead, unmistakably, the Democratic Party is using those troops to send the rest of us a message about power: “We’re in charge now.” We run this nation from Honolulu to our colony in the Caribbean, and everything in between very much, including where you and your family live. Do not question us. Men with guns enforce our decrees, we control the Pentagon. And indeed, they do control The Pentagon. Republicans have spent years ignoring the leftward drift of our officer corps, but we can’t ignore it now. The mask is off.
The Pentagon has authorized up to 25,000 National Guard members to help secure Washington, DC, for President-elect Joe Biden’s Inauguration Day. That’s in addition to the thousands of US Secret Service, Capitol Police, and DC police that will be out in force for the event.
Staff from New Zealand Dept of Conservation are often employed as ‘consultants’ for overseas ‘pest’ eradication projects. One example of such an eradication attempt comes from Wake Atoll, known as ‘Wake Island’ – which is between Hawaii and Guam in the northern Pacific Ocean. It is made up of Wake, (525 ha), Peale (95 ha), and Wilkes Islands (76 ha).
Wake is an unincorporated U.S. territory that is managed by the Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force. About 70 people reside on Wake (military personnel and contractors). Wake has approximately 19 km of coastline and is an important breeding area for many species of seabirds.Importantly, the coastline is also fished by the local residents for sport and food.
In 2012 an aerial brodifacoum poisoning operation took place over the islands to try to eradicate rats. How long brodifacoum persists in the environment is unclear, but we know it can potentially affect the food chain. These residues may impact on fish that are caught by Wake Island residents for sport and consumption. Three months after the poisoning, 5 out of 48 samples had “detectable levels” of poison – toxicologists therefore recommended a 942 day fishing ban after initial testing was done. But how much longer would the pesticide be in the food chain?
In 2015 – THREE YEARS AFTER this aerial operation of brodifacoum – samples from various marine life were taken. The scientists found that some fish (1 of 8 bluefin trevally, and 4 of 4 blacktail snapper, all from within a lagoon) had low but detectable levels of brodifacoum residues.
The scientists suggest that outcomes from their investigation should provide a comprehensive idea of the risks of contamination in marine life over the longer term from using pesticides aerially. In the article, the authors state “All reasonable efforts should be made to minimize unnecessary environmental and nontarget exposures (e.g., through precise application methods) and all risk assessments must consider the specific context of proposed action [poisoning the environment].”
However, an aerial distribution from helicopter of a lethal poison can NEVER be ‘precise’. The environment and the residents’ health have been put at risk.Reference: Siers, Shane R.; Shiels, Aaron B.; Volker, Steven F.; Rex, Kristen; and Pitt, William C., “Brodifacoum residues in fish three years after an island-wide rat eradication attempt in the tropical Pacific” (2020). USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. 2313.https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/2313
Kathy White says: “Remember the Hauraki Gulf brodifacoum poison drop? The dead dolphins, penguins, dogs and toxic sea-slugs? And the DOC man interviewed on TV, lying about having tested the penguins and them being negative. Fortunately there was an astute journalist who probed and discovered they hadn’t tested them – they had just examined them. Years later, in Penny Fisher’s journal articles, it talked about detecting brodifacoum in the penguins and them thinking the penguins may have died of starvation. They did later studies on anticoagulant rodenticides in penguins and found more than 50% of South Island test subjects had at least one anticoagulant in them.”
Image 1: Wake Island aerial view. Source: Pinterest
Image 2: Brodifacoum baits Source: Wellington Council