‘Gender Queer’ Woke School Counselor Arrested For Grooming And Assaulting A Child thumbnail

‘Gender Queer’ Woke School Counselor Arrested For Grooming And Assaulting A Child

By The Geller Report

Who is hiring these monsters?

Arizona: A radical leftist school counselor at a Tucson school (@tucsonunified) has been arrested for allegedly having sex w/a young student. Zobella Vinik has resigned. She organized the school’s first drag show & was involved w/far-left group AZ Resist. https://t.co/heinSkcaw9

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) May 16, 2022

Woke’ School Counselor Arrested For Grooming And Assaulting A Child

By: Patriot Chronicles, June 2022:

Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) high school counselors that promoted and organized ‘drag shows’ at the high school has been arrested for having sex with a student. Zobella Brazil Vinik, a 29-year-old woman who identifies as trans reportedly groomed and molested a 15-year-old female student.

TUSC spokesperson Karla Escamilla declined to comment on the arrest, but provided this statment [sic] from TUSD Superintendent Gabriel Trujillo:

Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) high school counselors that promoted and organized ‘drag shows’ at the high school has been arrested for having sex with a student. Zobella Brazil Vinik, a 29-year-old woman who identifies as trans reportedly groomed and molested a 15-year-old female student.

TUSC spokesperson Karla Escamilla declined to comment on the arrest, but provided this statment from TUSD Superintendent Gabriel Trujillo:

“On May 4th, 2022, detectives from the Tucson Police Department Sexual Assault Unit informed the administration of Tucson High Magnet School of an ongoing investigation into one of its counselors, Zobella Brazil Vinik. The administration was informed of an alleged inappropriate relationship between the counselor and a 15-year-old student from Tucson High.

Working with the Tucson High administration, the District administration acted swiftly to remove the counselor from campus and place her on administrative leave. Our School Safety Department immediately initiated a comprehensive investigation into this alleged incident, which is currently ongoing.

On Thursday May 5th, 2022, Ms. Vinik resigned her position from the Tucson Unified School District and is no longer an employee of the district. The Tucson Unified School District administration will continue to cooperate with the Tucson Police Department in its ongoing investigation. Our administration will continue to emphasize the health and safety of our students as our highest priority.”

Vinik, who promoted and planned school drag shows, identifies as ‘non-binary or ‘gender queer’. No word yet if the school will be held accountable for not providing students with a safe environment to learn.

RELATED TWEET:

Progressives reproduce by brainwashing other people’s children.

— Rae ❤️‍🔥 (@FiatLuxGenesis) June 3, 2022

RELATED VIDEO: Taco Bell launches ‘Drag Brunch’ tour across the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Investigation Launched Against School Counselor For Opposing Transgenderism

U.S. recorded 17 cases of monkeypox in May, mostly in gay and bisexual men: CDC

U.S. State Dept. Accused of Hypocrisy for Flying LGBT Flag at Vatican to Mark ‘Pride Month’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Vaccinated Women – Fertility Signals Are Coming Through thumbnail

Vaccinated Women – Fertility Signals Are Coming Through

By Save America Foundation

Vaccinated Women

Fertility signals are coming through.

The topic of pregnant and nursing moms getting vaccinated under encouragement and coercion is painful. It’s painful to research, painful to write about, and painful to learn how carelessly the most precious among us are being treated. The very essence of life and nature live within pregnant and nursing mothers. Reflecting on how little regard was paid to that life is upsetting, and everything I have to report in this post is done so with a heavy heart and a hope that we’ll get through this with a renewed sense of personal autonomy when it comes to medical decisions.

Notes to Keep in Mind:

  1. The FDA + Pfizer actively worked to keep this data hidden from sight for our lifetimes.
  2. Academic institutions, Medical institutions, and public health agencies are all still recommending that pregnant women take the Covid-19 vaccines as a precaution against Covid.

Dr. Naomi Wolf, Project Manager Amy Kelly, and the WarRoom/ DailyClout Pfizer Documents Volunteer Research Team have uncovered so many new important pieces of information that it’s getting difficult to keep up. I highly recommend pinning DailyClout to your homepage and checking their updates often. Their team of thousands of volunteers including hundreds of lawyers is working quickly, thoroughly, and efficiently.

A lot of information and serious concerns have emerged surrounding pregnant and nursing mothers and the possible effect that the Covid vaccines are having on their babies. Dr. Naomi Wolf has been appearing on Warroom regularly to provide us with updates on the findings of her and her team. On one appearance last week Dr. Wolf broke down some of the main red flags that have emerged, with the help of a female physician who studied the data:

  • Pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials when they were declared safe and effective for pregnant women. Pfizer, the FDA, the CDC, the entire “medical community” and your local employer who declared that you couldn’t come to work if you’re not vaccinated have concluded that this was safe and effective for pregnant women based on trials that were done on rats in France. There have not been any human clinical trials that have been concluded by Pfizer or other pharmaceutical companies to find out if these vaccines are safe for use during pregnancy or breastfeeding. There is currently one that’s still active, has no posted results and won’t conclude until July, 2022.
    • The animal studies that were conducted for the trial that the NIH based their conclusions on included 44 rats and were done over a period of 42 days. There are 2 main issues with this study:
      1. This doesn’t fulfill the requirement to ensure that the drug will do no harm to the next generation
      2. The doctors conducting the trials have all either been employed by or owned shares of Pfizer or BioNTech. There was an attempt to hide this fact by using their initials instead of full names on the study.
  • All Emergency Use Authorization excludes pregnant women.
  • Pregnant and nursing mothers were NOT ALLOWED to participate in phases 1,2, and 3 of human clinical trials. They were included on a list of 21 conditions that were not allowed to be recruited for trials. Page 33
  • The Department of Defense data is showing that female soldiers are having an astronomical rate of abnormalities and fetal problems. (NOTE- Mathew Crawford of RoundingtheEarth Substack has stated that he does not believe ANY of the DOD data is reliable, as it’s been demonstrably tampered with. Having said that, there are whistleblowers on the ground who corroborate that the rates of a variety of serious medical issues have indeed skyrocketed in 2021).

Adverse Events

In the Pfizer documents that were released thanks to legal force, there is data on reported adverse events since the rollout of the vaccine. On pages 12-13 of the document labeled “postmarketing-experience” Dr. Wolf’s Team 5 found:

  • 28% of the 270 pregnancies + 4 fetus/baby cases of adverse events were categorized as serious, including:
    • Miscarriages
    • Fetal deaths
    • Uterine contractions
    • Pre-term deliveries
    • Premature rupture of membranes
    • Fetal growth restrictions
  • Breastfed babies were reported to have effects such as:
    • Infantile vomiting
    • Fever
    • Rash
    • Agitation
    • Allergy to the vaccine
  • 4 nursing women reported adverse events such as:
    • Partial paralysis
    • Suppressed lactation
    • Breastmilk discoloration
    • Breast pain
    • Migraines

The document concludes that no serious adverse events have been detected. Dr. Wolf again questions whether we, as citizens of the United States of America, must begin to consider if all of these signs put together point to a serious national security breach. She has never seen anything as bad as what we’re seeing today in her 30 years in journalism.

There is a strong case that the potential risks for pregnant women from taking the Covid vaccine far outweigh the potential benefits.

On May 17, Dr. Wolf re-appeared on Warroom shortly after the FDA and the CDC authorized the Pfizer Covid-19 booster for 5-11-year-olds. In this segment, Dr. Wolf revealed some new information about data on the vaccine for pregnant and nursing mothers:

  • In Scotland there is an investigation happening right now that was triggered by a threshold that was crossed regarding the number of neonatal deaths. Its double the baseline amount, and this is the 2nd time in 7 months that the rate triggered an investigation.
  • Contrary to BBC claims (partially funded by Pfizer) that the rise in neonatal deaths cannot be connected to the vaccine, Dr. Wolf’s team, specifically Project Manager Amy Kelly, has found conclusive evidence to the contrary in Pfizer’s own documents.
  • Pfizer defined exposure to the vaccine as breastfeeding. This was not disclosed to pregnant women. A research team in Germany has confirmed to Dr. Wolf that breastmilk can deliver elements of the vaccine
  • A baby born to a vaccinated mother died after being born bleeding from the nose and mouth.
  • A mother received her 2nd vaccine dose on March 17, and within 24 hours her breastfed infant developed a rash and became inconsolable. The baby died 2 days later, with evidence of liver damage and a rare blood disorder.

The history of the claims of safety and efficacy regarding the Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant and nursing mothers will hopefully result in individuals who will be held criminally liable.

Missing Data

DailyClout’s expert Team 5 research team has reported some alarming numbers from Pfizer’s documents regarding missing information. In one group of 270 pregnancies, there were “no known outcomes” for 238 of the cases.

That leaves us with 36 known outcomes. Of those 36 known outcomes, 28 babies died before or at birth. It would be really helpful to know the outcome of the remaining 238 cases.

Pieces of the Puzzle – A Timeline

March 2021 – 50 participants in a clinical trial reported becoming pregnant, with some of them subsequently being dismissed from the trials. Cindy L. Weis of the DailyClout found that those 50 women have still not had their profiles updated to include pregnancy outcomes.

In the same March 2021 document, we can see that Pfizer themselves admits the following:

  1. Available data are insufficient to inform vaccine-related risks in pregnancy.
  2. Adverse effects from the vaccine on a breastfed child are a possibility.

July 2021- In Waterloo, Ontario between the months of January – July 2021, there were 86 babies who were born dead, otherwise known as stillbirths. The baseline rate is usually 5-6 per YEAR. One brave MP named Rick Nicholls raised the issue in a parliamentary session with great concern and passion. In response, the Minister of Health gave the answer we’re all used to. The vaccine is Safe and Effective. Just to note, there was no noticeable rise in stillbirths in 2020, the year of Covid.

September 2021 – Scotland launched it’s first investigation into an abnormal spike in newborn baby deaths that was triggered by surpassing a threshold in infant deaths that hadn’t been seen since the 1980’s. (Note- this spike did not occur in 2020, the Year of Covid)

Ashmedai over at Resisting the Intellectual Literati wrote an extensive report on fertility issues and the vaccine back in September 2021.

Is There a Plausible Basis For Fertility Concerns?

In my own community, the most prominent concern on the minds of many of the vaccine hesitant, especially young women of childbearing age, is the fear of an adverse effect on fertility. Possibly because of this, fertility concerns have also been derisively dismissed by the doctors with more passion and vengeance than for any other type of adverse effect…

August 2021- NPR reported on a survey out of the University of Chicago to investigate reports of changes in menstrual cycles after the vaccine. They received 140,000 responses.,

October 2021- VAERS looked like this:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VEARS COVID VACCINE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH REALATED REPORTS GRAPH

I ran my own VAERS report using only a few pregnancy-related keywords. The list is 769 events long, and here’s a screenshot of just a few from the first page:

December 2021 – IVF clinics reported unusual issues after the mass vaccination campaign began. Steve Kirsch covered it thoroughly.

IVF clinics started having serious problems right after the vaccines started rolling out

I just got off the phone with a woman who works at a large IVF clinic. She has to remain nameless to avoid being fired for speaking out. Nobody is supposed to know about the serious problems happening in the IVF clinics. Let me tell you what is really going on and the scientific study that explains it…

Read more

6 months ago · 498 likes · 457 comments · Steve Kirsch

January 2022- NIH funded a study that was released that reported a slight causal relationship between the Covid-19 vaccines and a lengthier menstrual cycle.

February 2022- An EU health agency announced an investigation between Covid-19 and disruptions in menstrual cycles based on reports coming in.

Josh Guetzkow reported on data from Rambam Hospital in Haifa, Israel. Vaccinated mothers were experiencing spontaneous abortions/miscarriages/stillbirths at a rate that’s 34% higher than their unvaccinated counterparts.

Stillbirths, Miscarriages and Abortions in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Women

Data from Rambam hospital in Haifa reveal a stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion (SBMA) rate of 6% among women who never received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 8% among women who were vaccinated with at least one dose (and never had a SARS-Cov-2 infection…

Read more

4 months ago · 58 likes · 62 comments · Josh Guetzkow

March 2022- A 2nd investigation was launched in Scotland due to the high rate of infant deaths, totaling 18 for the month of March.

Scotland Neonatal Deaths (top) vs. COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy (bottom)

Notice the corresponding spikes in May/June (Dose 1), August (Dose 2), and January (Dose 3)? 🤔

Source: Public Health Scotland@ChiefNerd pic.twitter.com/b0qJO0UaYK

— Love4Liberty (@Love4Liberty1) May 17, 2022

Pfizer, what say you?

After spending days reading reports about the horrible negative effects of fertility that are coming out in droves, I had to at least try and get some sort of response from Pfizer. After sitting on hold for a while, a gentleman named Ron got on the line. When I asked if the Covid-19 vaccine is safe for a pregnant woman to take, he read me the entire safety warning from Pfizer’s website. I then told him that I know many women who have had serious disruptions to their menstrual cycle, as well as numerous women who experienced miscarriages late term, shortly after getting one of the Pfizer vaccines. I asked him what he knows about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, given all the new information that’s come out from the FOIA requests.

He responded that he can pass me along to his managers, but first he has to read another statement, this time from the CDC. He proceeded to verbally read it for 10 minutes while I waited patiently. When he finished, surprised that I was still on the line, he asked if I had any more questions. I said yes, and asked if he wanted to be a whistleblower. He said he noted my response and passed me along to Olivia, which was pretty much a repeat of the first conversation.

I left contact information with both of them just in case, but somehow I highly doubt we’ll get a response. I did note to both of them that should they want to get on the right side of this scandal and begin to help those who are suffering, they should do so before the entire thing crumbles down.

Now What?

We’re now in May 2022. The claims of safety and efficacy don’t match their own internal documents that they tried to hide for 75 years. Yet academic institutions and public health agencies continue to insist it’s recommended for pregnant women to receive Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. Until when? Until the wave of misery gets so large that it’s no longer deniable? No one is coming to save us. Groups like DailyCloutVSRFAmerica’s Frontline DoctorsChildren’s Health Defense, and ICAN are sources of inspiration that there are still good men out there, as well as a source of hope that through their strength and efforts, we’ll come out of the other side of this with some integrity still left in some medical professionals.

AUTHOR

Etana Hecht

American Israeli, homemaker, wife, mom to 3. Buy Crypto. You’re still early. Freedom > Safety.

©Etana Hecht. All rights reserved.

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True thumbnail

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don’t know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.


If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

Global Cooling

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

  • Newsweek Magazine’s “The Cooling World” Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975 
  • Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
  • BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
  • Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
  • University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Great Die-Off

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

75 Percent of Species Will Go Extinct

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.

AUTHOR

Laura Williams

Dr. Laura Williams  teaches communication strategy to undergraduates and executives. She is a passionate advocate for critical thinking, individual liberties, and the Oxford Comma.

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?

How The Climate Media Subverts The Climate Debate

CLIMATE STUDY: ‘We have practically no anthropogenic [man made] climate change.’

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bill Gates’ Latest Attack, Now Targeting Moms thumbnail

Bill Gates’ Latest Attack, Now Targeting Moms

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab, along with other varieties of fake food
  • Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes
  • This “protein” industry convergence is jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops
  • When you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources, lab-grown meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork
  • There are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground; shares of Beyond Meat lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth
  • To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised using regenerative, grass fed methods

Fake food is being poised as a panacea to end world hunger and food shortages, but there’s nothing miraculous about synthetic, lab-made food. It can’t compare to food that comes from nature in terms of nutrition or environmental protection, and as we’re seeing with the mysterious infant formula shortages, when you’re dependent on fake food, your very survival is also dependent on the handful of companies that manufacture them.

With parents getting desperate in the search for infant formula, it’s eye-opening that campaigns haven’t been started to encourage new mothers to breastfeed — the best food for infants and one that also happens to be free and readily available in most cases. If you haven’t read my article on the best workaround for infant formula for those that are unable to breast feed, it is on Substack.

In the video above, you can watch a concerning timeline about why this may be, as Bill Gates appears to be behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage uptake of BIOMILQ, a cell-cultured “human milk” made in a lab,1 along with other varieties of fake food.

Bill Gates’ Formula for Disaster

In June 2020, Bill Gates announced startup company BIOMILQ, which is using biotechnology to create lab-made human milk for babies. Using mammary epithelial cells placed in flasks with cell culture media, the cells grow and are placed in a bioreactor that the company says “recreates conditions similar to in the breast.”2

This synthetic lab-made breast milk replacement raised $3.5 million in funding from Gates’ investment firm Breakthrough Energy Ventures.3 Gates has also contributed at least $319 million to the media,4 including The Guardian, allowing him to control and dictate what they print. The day after the Gates Foundation paid The Guardian its annual funding in May 2022, it released a hit piece on breastfeeding titled, “Turns out breastfeeding really does hurt — why does no one tell you?”5

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) offers also seized 588 cases of infant formula from Europe in April 2021 because it lacked appropriate nutritional labeling. In February 2021, CBP officers said they inspected 17 separate shipments of infant formula from Germany and The Netherlands, leading to a warning against buying infant formula online from overseas.

At the time, Keith Fleming, CBP’s acting director of field operations in Baltimore, Maryland, said in a news release:6

“Consumers should be very careful when contemplating the purchase of items over the internet from an international source, because they may not get what they expect. People expect that the products they purchase comply with existing U.S. health and safety laws and regulations and they’ll be safe for them or their family. That’s not always the case.”

While warning Americans against purchasing infant formula from overseas, in February 2022 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced bacterial contamination at the Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan facility,7 which is behind the current infant formula shortages. While Gates is clearly behind the push to stop breastfeeding and encourage BIOMILQ in lieu of breastmilk or formula, the formula shortages highlight the risks of consolidated food production.

Abbott Enriched Shareholders While Formula Sickened Babies

Corporate consolidation is rampant in the U.S. baby formula market, of which 90% is controlled by four companies. Abbot is among them, responsible for 43% of baby formula production in the U.S.8 Yet, according to a whistleblower filing from October 2021, equipment at the company’s Sturgis facility was “failing and in need of repair.”

Pitting and pinholes reportedly existed in a number of pipes, allowing bacterial contamination. Leadership was aware of the failing equipment for up to seven years before the February 2022 outbreak, according to the whistleblower’s report.9

With equipment in need of repair, and a bacteria outbreak in their formula sickening babies, Abbott used its massive profits from 2019 to 2021 to announce a lucrative stock buyback program.10 According to The Guardian:11

“Abbott detected bacteria eight times as its net profits soared by 94% between 2019 and 2021. And just as its tainted formula allegedly began sickening a number of babies, with two deaths reported, the company increased dividends to shareholders by over 25% while announcing a stock buyback program worth $5bn.”

Speaking with The Guardian, Rakeen Mabud, chief economist for the Groundwork Collaborative, added, “Abbott chose to prioritize shareholders by issuing billions of dollars in stock buybacks instead of making productive investments.”12

Big Meat and Dairy Companies Dominate Fake Meat Industry

The increasing number of plant-based fake foods and lab-grown meat companies give the illusion that consumers are getting more choices and the food industry is becoming less consolidated. However, there are still relatively few firms that are controlling the global grab for “protein” markets.

In a research article published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Philip Howard, a faculty member in the department of community sustainability at Michigan State University, and colleagues explain how this “protein” industry convergence is further jeopardizing the resilience of the food system and reducing genetic diversity of livestock and crops:13

“Recent years have seen the convergence of industries that focus on higher protein foods, such as meat processing firms expanding into plant-based substitutes and/or cellular meat production, and fisheries firms expanding into aquaculture. A driving force behind these changes is dominant firms seeking to increase their power relative to close competitors, including by extending beyond boundaries that pose constraints to growth.

The broad banner of “protein” offers a promising space to achieve this goal, despite its nutritionally reductionist focus on a single macronutrient. Protein firm strategies to increase their dominance are likely to further diminish equity in food systems by exacerbating power asymmetries.”

Tyson and Cargill, two of the largest meat processors in the world, for instance, have invested in fake meat company Memphis Meats, which also has backing from Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Other billionaires invested in fake foods include Sergey Brin (Mosa Meat), Peter Thiel (Modern Meadow) and Marc Benioff (Eat Just).

“These companies wouldn’t be making these investments if they didn’t expect that the intellectual properties held by these start-ups will lead to monopoly profits,” Howard notes.14 In “The Politics of Protein,” a report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), Howard explains:15

“Nearly every large meat and dairy processor/manufacturer has also acquired or developed plant-based meat and dairy substitutes, establishing footholds in a market that is growing approximately 20% per year.

More than a dozen of these firms have also invested in start-ups that are attempting to commercialize lab-grown meat and fish. Meanwhile, Vanguard and BlackRock — two of the world’s biggest asset management firms — have investments in almost all the largest meat, dairy, and animal feed companies.”

It is important to understand why all of these fake meat products are an absolute metabolic disaster relates to the fact that they are using vegetable fats to replace animal fats. Not only are they devoid of important vitamins like vitamin A and vitamin K2, but they are loaded with the dangerous omega-6 fat linoleic acid LA.

In some cases they contain up to 10 to 20 times the amount found in meats, which will radically contribute to diseases like diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart disease.

Lab-Grown Food Is an Environmental Catastrophe

The push for fake food is being made on the platform that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, which has devastated the environment with its concentrated animal feeding operations and monocultures. But this, too, is misleading.

In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.16 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”

In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.

And, the oxygen and nutrients available must be adequately distributed to all the cells — something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.17

The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.18,19

Farmer and historian John Lewis-Stempel also points out that the world’s farmers already produce enough food for the global population: “[A]ny discussion of global food policy needs to begin with one plain fact: there is … no actual food shortage. Already, the planet’s farmers produce enough food to cater for the projected 10 billion humans of 2050. The problem is waste and distribution.”20

Yet, the push for the creation of fake protein sources continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva also details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:21

“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.

Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change. The notion that high-tech, “farm free” lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.

Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”

Signs the Fake Meat Industry Is Stalling

For all of its fanfare, there are signs that the fake meat industry may be failing before it ever gets off the ground. Shares of Beyond Meat, for one example, lost $6 billion since March 2020 due to weak sales growth and has resorted to partnering with PepsiCo to release a plant-based jerky product.

“My analysis is the launch will do very little to increase the company’s fortunes,” writes business development consultant Victor Martino in Just Food.22 He argues that the “plant-based meat revolution” is just a PR stunt, a narrative that’s set to implode:23

“The fact is, despite increased product availability in terms of brand choices and added retail outlets, plant-based meat sales stalled in 2021, recording zero growth, according to recent research from SPINS, data commissioned and released by The Plant-Based Foods Association and The Good Food Institute.

According to the research, the total annual sales of plant-based meat in the US remained stable at $1.4 billion. That’s a continuation of the 1.4% share of total meat category sales.”

Shares of Beyond Meat and Oatly, a plant-based milk substitute, have lost more than half their value in 2022,24 but this isn’t to say that their executives are suffering. Beyond Meat’s former chief growth officer Chuck Muth sold shares valued at more than $62 million from 2019 to 2021, while Biz Stone, a current board member and Twitter co-founder, has made millions on Beyond Meat stock.25

The fact remains that when private companies control the food supply, they will also ultimately control countries and entire populations. Biotech will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation and will threaten food security and human health. In other words, the work being done in the name of sustainability and saving the planet will give greater control to private corporations while weakening the population.

To save the planet and support your health, skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food that’s being raised the right way instead. When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are bringing you truly sustainable food for a healthy population and planet.

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The New York Times Explains Why Mask Mandates Don’t Work thumbnail

The New York Times Explains Why Mask Mandates Don’t Work

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The New York Times concedes that mask mandates are ineffective—as President Biden fights to reinstate them.


Throughout the pandemic, few things incited more discord than the mandated use of facemasks as a preventative measure to reduce the spread of Covid-19.

At various times, merely questioning the effectiveness of masks or mask mandates could result in a social media suspension, as when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) received the boot from YouTube for citing research that suggested cloth masks were ineffective at containing Covid (something CNN admitted months later).

A badge of honor . . . leftwing cretins at Youtube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work.

If you want to see the banned video go to Liberty Tree https://t.co/gsTUwuLZGL

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 10, 2021

While mask mandates have largely receded across the US, arguments over their effectiveness have not.

On Tuesday, President Biden’s Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to overturn a District Court judge’s order that declared the government mask mandate on airplanes, buses, and other transit unlawful, stating that the CDC had not sought public comment prior to the order and failed to adequately explain its reasoning.

The Justice Department’s timing could be inauspicious.

The same day the DOJ’s appeal was filed, The New York Times published an article that explores the ineffectiveness of mask mandates. David Leonhardt, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, begins by exploring an apparent paradox involving masks observed by epidemiologist Dr. Shira Doron of Tufts Medical Center: “It is simultaneously true that masks work and mask mandates do not work.”

I was an early mask adopter — & they make intuitive sense — but a growing body of evidence shows that mask mandates don’t appear to make much difference at the community level. pic.twitter.com/wnfBUKcZuM

— Liz Highleyman (@LizHighleyman) April 13, 2022

The idea that mask-wearing is effective but mask mandates are not does indeed seem like a paradox. But Leonhardt accepts the evidence that masks can mitigate the spread of Covid even as he provides copious evidence suggesting that mask mandates are ineffective.

In U.S. cities where mask use has been more common, Covid has spread at a similar rate as in mask-resistant cities. Mask mandates in schools also seem to have done little to reduce the spread. Hong Kong, despite almost universal mask-wearing, recently endured one of the world’s worst Covid outbreaks.

Advocates of mandates sometimes argue that they do have a big effect even if it is not evident in populationwide data, because of how many other factors are at play. But this argument seems unpersuasive.

After all, the effect of vaccines on severe illness is blazingly obvious in the geographic data: Places with higher vaccination rates have suffered many fewer Covid deaths.

While the idea that masks work while mask mandates do not might seem like a paradox, there’s actually a very simple explanation for the phenomenon (though it’s not the only explanation).

As Leonhardt notes, it’s quite possible that people who choose to wear masks wear them differently than people who are required to wear them.

“Airplane passengers remove their masks to have a drink. Restaurant patrons go maskless as soon as they walk in the door. Schoolchildren let their masks slide down their faces. So do adults: Research by the University of Minnesota suggests that between 25 percent and 30 percent of Americans consistently wear their masks below their nose.

“Even though masks work, getting millions of people to wear them, and wear them consistently and properly, is a far greater challenge,” Steven Salzberg, a biostatistician at Johns Hopkins University, has written.

Means and Ends

There’s an adage popular among libertarians: good ideas don’t require force. It’s a good line, but it’s also important to remember that force also yields dismal results.

Humans tend to forget this, but it’s an idea that Leonard Read took seriously. In his 1969 essay “The Bloom Pre-Exists in the Seed,” Read argued that one could reasonably predict the ends of a given action based on the means employed.

Examine the actions—means—that are implicit in achieving the goals.

Implicit in the collectivistic approach…is the masterminding of the people…The control of the individual’s life is from without. [But for] an individualist…what is valued above all else [is] each distinctive individual human being.

Any conscientious collectivist, if he could…properly evaluate the authoritarian means his system of thought demands, would likely defect.

However lofty the goals, if the means be depraved, the result must reflect that depravity.

This is why Read believed it was important to focus on means first, and ends second. Unfortunately, as a society we increasingly take the opposite approach—and we saw ample evidence of this during the pandemic, including with mask mandates.

To be sure, this is not the only explanation for the apparent paradox involving the alleged effectiveness of masks and the alleged ineffectiveness of mask mandates.

Any thinker worth his salt will tell you if you have a paradox, the first thing you should do is check your premises. It’s more than possible that one of Leonhardt’s premises—masks work, mask mandates don’t—is wrong. (Considering that prior to and during the pandemic the World Health Organizationthe US Surgeon General, and the CDC all expressed doubt about the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, I’m betting on the former being wrong over the latter.)

Whatever the case may be, it’s safe to say Leonard Read would have been one of the few voices in the wilderness during the pandemic warning that non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdowns, mask mandates, etc.) would achieve little and would likely cause serious harms—and he would have been right.

Read knew the bloom pre-exists in the seed, and that means the use of force, sooner or later, is likely going to yield rotten fruit.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

These 10 States Had The Most Expensive Gas Over Memorial Day Weekend thumbnail

These 10 States Had The Most Expensive Gas Over Memorial Day Weekend

By The Daily Caller

As the national average for gasoline rose to a new record high of $4.62 a gallon on Memorial Day, prices varied throughout the country affecting drivers on one of the busiest travel days of the year.

According to AAA, gas prices went up one penny since Sunday and gasoline is now 44 cents more expensive than it was just last month, CNN reported. On Memorial Day of 2021, gas prices averaged $3.05 a gallon, according to AAA. The Biden administration has continued to face criticism over the record-breaking gas prices and has been blaming the increase in price on the war in Ukraine.

AAA also said around 34.9 million people are traveling by car for Memorial Day weekend, which is 4.6% higher than in 2020, CNN noted. (RELATED: Gas Prices Hit Another Record High)

The 10 states that had the most expensive average gas prices over Memorial Day weekend, according to AAA: 

Alaska: $5.20 a gallon

Arizona: $4.95 a gallon

California: $6.15 a gallon

Hawaii: $5.44 a gallon

Illinois: $5.00 a gallon

Maine: $4.77 a gallon

Nevada: $5.30 a gallon

New York: $4.93 a gallon

Oregon: $5.20 a gallon

Washington: $5.23 a gallon

The Hill first reported about the highest prices in the 10 states.

On Thursday, the average price of gas in the U.S. hit its last record, with the average price costing Americans $4.60 a gallon, up more than 92% since President Joe Biden took office.

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Senior Congressional correspondent.

RELATED TWEET:

Cost of living rises to an over two-year high with inflation at 7.1% in May from 6.5% in April 2022 due to high food and fuel costs, KNBS data shows. 🥺 pic.twitter.com/YVTB5SXRQQ

— AFP Florida (@AFPFlorida) May 31, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Energy Sec Claims Biden Is ‘Obsessed’ With Lowering Gas Prices. So Why Do Prices Keep Going Up?

Gas Prices Hit Another Record High

The US Hasn’t Built A Major Oil Refinery In Nearly 50 Years. Here’s Why

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How to handle Covid-19 bullying thumbnail

How to handle Covid-19 bullying

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Could a teenager’s suicide have been prevented with a simple question?


An unbearable yet too-common tragedy resulting from bullying is the suicide of its victims. It is a parent’s worst nightmare. A rash of suicides in the 1970s set Dan Olweus on the path to establishing the field of bullying psychology. Suicides have been a major trigger for anti-bullying campaigns and laws.

Despite the proliferation of anti-bullying programs and laws in the past two decades, bullying continues to be considered an epidemic, with the youth suicide rate skyrocketing during this same period.

The latest high-profile suicide tragedy to hit the national news is that of Nate Bronstein, a 15-year-old student at the exclusive Chicago Catholic prep school, the Latin School. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the parents are suing the school for no less than $100,000,000–yes, one hundred million dollars–for failing to prevent his death. And the taxpayer–you and I–will end up footing the bill if the parents prevail.

While we tend to think of bullying as serious physical attacks or threats against victims, the great majority of bullying, including the impetus for most suicides, is not physical but verbal. Any characteristic can become the subject of bullying: intelligence, appearance, race or religion, sexual orientation, and even clothing.

An unusual casualty of the war against Covid-19

Nate may be the first case of a suicide stemming from Covid-19 insults. Students falsely accused him of being unvaccinated. Vaccination against Covid-19 has been a top priority for the administration and the appointed leaders of our public health organizations, who intentionally blamed the unvaccinated for the epidemic and encouraged the rest of us to do the same, with many celebrities and pundits answering this “call to duty”.

It is no wonder that in such a climate, a child would get extremely upset by being called unvaccinated. This is the trap that leads individuals to become the victims of non-stop bullying: they get upset because they want the insults to stop. They don’t realize that getting upset is actually what keeps the insults coming their way.

Why aren’t anti-bullying efforts working?

Why, after decades of anti-bullying efforts, laws, and research, do kids continue to be bullied in school? It’s because the prevalent approach to bullying, developed by Olweus and universally enshrined in school anti-bullying policies and laws, is predicated on the school protecting children from each other. Students and their parents are instructed to inform the school when bullying occurs. It then becomes the school’s responsibility to investigate, determine who the guilty parties are, and punish or rehabilitate them.

However, research and plain experience show that this approach does little to stop bullying, and often makes it worse. Informing the school can only work if the schools have a reliable approach to handling bullying. Usually, they don’t. Instead, they follow mandated policies of investigating, judging, and punishing, which tends to cause hostilities to escalate, for no party wants to be accused of wrongdoing. The accused typically insist on their innocence and blame the informer.

Indeed, the Tribune reports, “In November and October alone, [mom] contacted Latin more than 30 times.” While the school allegedly didn’t punish anyone, we can be sure that the kids being investigated were furious with Nate for constantly trying to get them in trouble, spurring them to call him “a terrible person” and telling him to kill himself.

The school’s denial of guilt

As virtually all schools do in response to a bullying lawsuit, the Latin School denied the accusations. The Tribune reports:

In a statement, the school called the claims unfounded. It said it “deeply grieves” the death of one of its students, but it plans to “vigorously defend itself… The allegations of wrongdoing by the school officials are inaccurate and misplaced… The school’s faculty and staff are compassionate people who put students’ interests first, as they did in this instance.”

And the school is probably right. It did attempt to solve the problem. It’s just that the idea spread by the anti-bullying establishment that bullying occurs because the schools do nothing to stop it has no basis in reality.

If you are not sure about this, try this at home, if you have children of your own. Treat the aggression between them the way anti-bullying laws require schools to do it. Investigate every complaint they bring you, conduct interrogations, and punish the wrongdoer. The likely result is that your kids will be fighting more often than ever. They will come to hate each other, and at least one of them (the one you find guilty) will end up hating you, too. Strangely, the very interventions that cause intense sibling rivalry at home are somehow expected to reduce hostilities among students in school.

There is a better way

The prevalent approach to bullying requires large investments of time and effort–which costs money–and still can result in the school being sued for astronomical sums of money for failing to stop the bullying.

All the money in the world will not put an end to bullying. What’s needed is good psychology. The policies required are not those of protecting and policing children, but teaching them how to handle insults and accusations on their own, so that attacks are nipped in the bud and don’t evolve into ongoing bullying relationships. This knowledge can be obtained essentially for free. Any counsellor or staff member can do the following with a student complaining of being bullied for being unvaccinated or any other false accusation. It involves role-playing, conducted in two stages.

Stage One

(It may go as follows):

Counsellor: Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.

Student: You’re unvaccinated!

Counsellor: No, I’m not!

Student: Yes, you are! You are going to get us all sick and make us die!

Counsellor: That’s not true!

Student: Yes, it is!

Counsellor: No, it’s not! Why are you saying that?

Student: Because your parents are anti-vaxxers!

Counsellor: No, they’re not!

Student: Yes, they are!

Counsellor: No, they’re not!

Student: Yes, they are!

After futilely going back and forth for a while…

Counsellor: I give up. I’m not making you stop, am I?

Student: No.

Counsellor: Who’s winning?

Student: I am.

Counsellor: And aren’t you having fun seeing me get upset?

Student: Yes.

Stage Two

Counsellor: Let’s do it again. Accuse me of being unvaccinated, and don’t let me stop you.

Student: You’re unvaccinated!

Counsellor: Is that what you believe?

Student: Yes!

Counsellor: If you want to believe it, I can’t stop you.

Student: No, you can’t.

Counsellor: That’s right. You can believe anything you want.

At this point, the student probably has nothing more to say. Counsellor continues…

Counsellor: Who’s winning this time?

Student: You are.

Counsellor: You see, the kids aren’t calling you “unvaccinated” because they believe that’s what you are. They do it because when you get upset and defend yourself, you automatically lose, they have a good time, and they continue doing it to you. So, instead of defending yourself, turn the tables on them. Make them defend themselves by asking, “Do you believe it?” If they say, “Yes,” you say, “You can believe it if you wish,” and you win. And if they say, “No,” you win even bigger.

One simple question. No bullying. No suicide. No lawsuit.

AUTHOR

Izzy Kalman is the author and creator of the website Bullies2Buddies.com and a critic of the anti-bully movement. More by Izzy Kalman

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

107 Times the Risk, Are ‘Boosters’ Designed to Kill? thumbnail

107 Times the Risk, Are ‘Boosters’ Designed to Kill?

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

FDA Authorizes Pfizer Boosters for Kids 5 to 11


STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The FDA has authorized the use of a booster COVID-19 shot in children ages 5 to 11; less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy
  • Effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children wanes rapidly; a CDC study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds, but this fell to just 28.9% by month two
  • There is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots as well as booster doses in adults
  • Artificially inflated antibodies triggered by booster shots signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health
  • COVID-19 shots are associated with liver injury, including liver failure that led to a liver transplant
  • Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and CDC data show that COVID-19 case rates among children who received two COVID-19 shots are now higher than rates in children who did not get the shots

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot to allow a booster dose for children ages 5 to 11.1 The FDA’s “evaluation of safety” for the booster dose in young children was based on a study of only about 400 children, and no meeting was held with the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

The booster shot is intended to be given at least five months after the primary two-dose series has been completed, but less than one-third — only 28.8% — of U.S. children in this age group have received the first two doses of this experimental gene therapy.2

“[G]iven that these children have the lowest coronavirus vaccination rate of all eligible Americans, [as most parents have wisely avoided giving their child the jab,] public health experts are not expecting a rush for the booster,” The New York Times reported,3 and this is good news, since multiple red flags have risen regarding the use of these shots, particularly among children.

COVID Shots’ Dismal Effectiveness Wanes Rapidly

Booster shots are typically released because the initial shots aren’t working as planned. This is certainly the case with COVID-19 shots, which have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12%, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.4 In their rationale for why a booster dose is now needed for children, Dr. Peter Marks, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said:5

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations.”

From December 13, 2021, to January 24, 2022, the New York State Department of Health researchers analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots. Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%.

Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.6 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.7

A CDC study also found that the effectiveness of two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots against symptomatic COVID-19 infection “was modest and decreased rapidly” from December 2021 to February 2022.8 The study found that two to four weeks after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots, effectiveness was 60.1% among 5- to 11-year-olds. This fell to just 28.9% by month 2.

A similar trend was seen among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. Vaccine effectiveness two to four weeks after the second dose of the shots was 59.5%, and this fell to 16.6% during month two.9 Among adolescents who received a booster dose, effectiveness went back up to 71.1% two to 6.5 weeks later, but it’s not revealed what happened after that.

If data from adults are any indication, the boost in effectiveness from the booster will also be short-lived. Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.10

Children’s Booster Trial Didn’t Test Effectiveness

The FDA’s decision to allow a booster dose for children was based on an ongoing Pfizer trial — the same one that it used to authorize the first set of COVID-19 shots in the 5- to 11-year-old age group.

Antibody responses were evaluated in only 67 subjects who received a booster shot seven to nine months after the two-dose primary series of shots. “The antibody level against the SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after the booster dose was increased compared to before the booster dose,” the FDA noted.11

However, there is still no data on whether the booster is effective against COVID-19, and whether the effectiveness will quickly wane, as it has with all previous shots. The New York Times also reported:12

“In the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial, children showed a sixfold increase in antibody levels against the original version of the virus one month after receiving the booster, compared with one month after receiving a second dose …

Laboratory tests of blood samples from a tiny subgroup of 30 children also showed 36 times the level of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant compared with levels after only two doses. The study did not show how long the antibodies last or test effectiveness against Covid-19.”

High, Artificially Elevated Antibodies Come at a Cost

What’s more, the notion that increasing antibodies equates to disease protection and better health is misguided. Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.

Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.13 During normal infections, your cellular immune system produces high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.

Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”14 This is a normal response and isn’t a measure of waning immunity.

On the contrary, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies with booster shots comes with a cost and can lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.15

It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.16 Further, COVID-19 shots train your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein and cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:17

“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine core platform technology,18 also stated, “When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and ignored natural immunity among children. Yet 81 research studies19 confirm that natural immunity to COVID is equal or superior to any ‘vaccine immunity.’”20

COVID Shots Cause Liver Failure, Other Serious Adverse Effects

A concerning number of case reports describe the development of immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis in the days and weeks following COVID-19 injections.21 A team of researchers collected date from such cases from 18 countries, identifying 87 patients with a median age of 48 years who developed autoimmune hepatitis-like liver injury after a COVID-19 shot.22

Typically, the liver injury was diagnosed 15 days after the shot. Most cases (59%) were attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot while 23% were linked to the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot and 18% to Moderna’s shot. All of the patients in the study recovered from the liver injury after treatment — except for one. That man developed liver failure and had to have a liver transplant. The researchers concluded:23

“SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be associated with liver injury. Corticosteroid therapy may be beneficial in those with immune-mediated features or severe hepatitis. Outcome was generally favorable, but vaccine associated liver injury led to fulminant liver failure in one patient.”

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis at an unusually high rate and nobody knows why.24 It’s unclear how many of the children have received COVID-19 shots, but researchers did suggest that mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection could have left behind spike protein that’s acting as a “superantigen”25 and triggering the immune system to over-react to other viruses, such as adenovirus-41F, which is causing liver damage.26

If that’s the case, the spike protein that circulates in the body after COVID-19 shots could also be problematic, especially since “mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.”27 Other concerning adverse events have also been reported.

One study published in Scientific Reports, for instance, revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.28

COVID-19 Case Rates Higher in Injected Children

Children are at an extremely low risk of serious illness from COVID-19, making the recommendations for COVID-19 shots, and now boosters, among this population highly questionable — even ludicrous.

“Research shows that there is no benefit to children receiving a COVID shot, and in fact, the shots can cause potential harm, adverse effects and death. According to Pfizer’s own study trial data, the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID,” Malone stated.29

The CDC’s own data also show that COVID-19 case rates among children who have received two COVID-19 shots have been higher than rates in children who did not get the shots since February 2022.30

“That’s the first time CDC recorded a higher case rate among fully vaccinated young children since data was first collected in December 2021,” Malone said,31 and perhaps it’s harbinger of things to come. Adding a booster dose to the already dangerous, ineffective and flawed COVID-19 shot recommendations for children will only add more fuel to the fire.

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Monkeypox pix reveal Western media’s double standards thumbnail

The Monkeypox pix reveal Western media’s double standards

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Africans are outraged by coverage of an outbreak of an exotic disease


There’s an outbreak of monkeypox, a simian relative of smallpox, in western Europe, North America, and Australia. There’s no monkeypox outbreak in Africa. Yet, if all you had to go by were the images initially used to illustrate news articles about the outbreak in the mainstream corporate press, you’d be excused to think that Africa was the blazing epicentre of the outbreak.

From the BBC to the New York Times, the Guardian to Reuters, coverage of the outbreak came with pictures of people of African descent, their exposed skin pocked with festering blisters. Crucially, the pictures were all old file photos, with some being from as far back as the 1990s. The only major news sites that didn’t use these photos were those not based in the West, like Qatari Al Jazeera.

Naturally, many Africans online have been blasting Western media houses for this usage and sharing recent photos of white people suffering from the disease. When the Twitter handle of a Kenyan broadcaster illustrated a post about the disease with one such picture, the comments section erupted in cheers. Even the association of foreign journalists working in Africa weighed in with a formal condemnation.

Following the backlash, many of the offending pictures have been taken down and replaced with electron micrographs of the virus that causes the disease or, in a few cases, pictures of white victims.

Unfortunately, a few articles, like this one from the BBC and this other one by the New York Times, still inexcusably sport photos of Africans suffering from monkeypox.

Why, you may ask, do Africans care so much about this? Isn’t the disease endemic to the continent, after all? Until recently, weren’t most photos depicting the disease taken in African countries, so that they were the only ones available at the outset of the outbreak? And, even if this hadn’t been the case, what’s wrong with using the images? Aren’t there black people in the West?

Well, part of the answer comes from the offending news organisations themselves. Just two years ago, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Wuhan, these same institutions worked up a whole kerfuffle about keeping their coverage of the disease respectful to the Chinese people. Convinced that it was their duty to spare them the stigma associated with the disease, they contorted themselves into all kinds of shapes and forwent some of the thrills of photojournalism.

Instead of dramatic photos of intubated patients struggling for air, they elected to use images and artistic impressions of the virus in their stories. When the WHO conjured up a clumsy name for the disease that had nothing to do with its place of origin, they fell in line and carried it to all corners of the earth. And when a certain bad orange man insisted on calling it the China virus, they added it to the ledger in support of their allegation that he was a white supremacist.

Why then have they, who acted so sanctimoniously in a case where they would have been excused for using photos of victims (Covid-19 did break out in Wuhan, after all) not only not been as careful, but turned into the perpetrators of an arguably worse offense? Were they even sincere the first time? Or have two years been too long for them to keep up the act?

Many commentators have attributed malice and neo-colonialist attitudes to the journalists and editors clearing the use of the images featuring Africans. It fits into a macabre pattern of thought about Africa that Western media organisations just can’t seem to wean themselves off of. Western media, the charge goes, considers Africa to be a backward place filled with sub-human people, whose suffering can be safely ogled at by sympathetic Westerners, who have no dignity to be defended.

Though broad, this accusation isn’t spurious. It’s hard to find other reasons for the tendency of Western media to gravitate to the lens of disaster porn in their treatment of Africa. Not even in their Covid-19 coverage, when they were ostentatious about being respectful everywhere else, could they shake it off.

Instead, they were overly enthusiastic every time it seemed as though Africa was about to take a turn for the worse, and palpably disappointed with every implosion of that expectation.

To give the devil his due, though, maybe we should look for other reasons. After all, no one in the West talks louder about decolonisation, and no one wants to be thought of as an ally of marginalised groups more, than these organisations. Is it possible that Africa is just such a small part of their constituency that they don’t think about it as much, or as carefully, as they do about the rest of their readers, and so are in the dark about Africans’ perception of their attitudes?

Or maybe they do, but this is the only angle for effective storytelling about the continent. Maybe it even comes from a good place, a sympathetic posture towards a continent that’s still bottom of the global healthcare system ranks. Maybe, by using photos of Africans to illustrate a disease outbreak in the West, they are trying to get ahead of the curve, so that when the disease resurges on the continent, the spigots of assistance can flow unimpeded.

If these excuses sound unconvincing, it’s because they are. Try as I might, I cannot find any compelling alternative reasons. In a world where information is so easy to come by, it isn’t reasonable to excuse well-resourced media organisations for being too lazy to use accurate photos for their stories. They are taking photos from a literal warzone in Europe right now, for crying out loud!

And so we are left with the initial accusation. Mainstream Western news organisations have been falling into this pattern in their African coverage for far too long for it to be merely circumstantial. It is inexcusable, even by their own standards, and it’s high time they tried dealing with it.

AUTHOR

Mathew Otieno

Mathew Otieno writes from Kisumu, Kenya. More by Mathew Otieno

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Gen Z Is Stepping Into Financial Independence thumbnail

How Gen Z Is Stepping Into Financial Independence

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Gen Z is one of the most well-educated generations, but they also face a unique set of challenges.


Recent financial literacy surveys have found that Generation Z adults (people aged 18-25) are more financially educated than any previous generation. Today, over half of Gen Z already invests in some form. 26% of those who are invested put their money into the stock market.

But this doesn’t mean there isn’t more for Gen Z to learn. Of the group that invests in the stock market, only 1 in 4 thinks they could explain how it works to a friend. The financial concepts most familiar to Gen Z are how spending and saving work.

The key takeaway is that Gen Z knows a lot about finance, but they lack education depth. By addressing educational gaps, Gen Z, and anyone else, can boost their understanding of finance and secure their way towards financial independence.

Gen Z is a series of juxtapositions when it comes to finances. Most of them are off to a good start, but others face shortfalls in their financial understanding. Importantly, many Gen Zers know that they need to learn more. But many who understand basic principles are intimidated by more complex and sophisticated investing principles. Finally, Gen Z is one of the most well-educated generations. Unfortunately, they are also saddled with huge amounts of student loan debt to get by while studying.

As Gen Z enters the workforce, a recent survey by Investopedia polling 4,000 U.S. adults looked at the financial knowledge of various generations. Just under half of Gen Zers feel confident about their financial literacy. Gen Z has the lowest confidence in financial knowledge among Gen Zers, Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers.

It’s perhaps surprising that Gen Z has such low confidence in their financial literacy despite how much information is available today. Whether it’s in the classroom or online via platforms like TikTok and Instagram, Gen Z has a seemingly endless stream of knowledge at its fingertips.

But a recent survey conducted by Greenlight Financial Technology found that while members of Gen Z have a strong interest in personal finance, they also desire more financial education and subsequently lack the confidence to properly handle their finances.

Spending and saving, which seems to be Gen Z’s strong points, have been attributed to them watching their parents struggle, particularly throughout the Great Recession.

Even if they aren’t totally confident, Gen Z is big on investing. 54% of Gen Z holds investments of some kind, whether stocks, cryptocurrency, or non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Importantly, investing occurs across a wide range of demographics within Gen Z. 48% of Gen Z women hold investments, with the number being higher for Gen Z men (60%).

An area that does divide Gen Zers is income. Of those that earn less than $50,000 a year, only 45% are investing. By comparison, 73% of those making more than $50,000 have put their money into financial instruments.

Like Millennials, the most popular areas of investing for Gen Z are new financial technologies, like crypto.

Crypto has become an increasingly popular investing tool as younger generations become skeptical of traditional investing. Some of their concerns revolve around how the government always seems to just print more money whenever the economy cools down. Both Gen Z and Millennials invest in crypto and stocks at similar rates, with around 1 in 4 investing in crypto.

Men tend to own cryptocurrencies and NFTs at nearly double the rate of women. However, these financial instruments can be particularly vulnerable to fluctuations. One way to prevent taking on too much risk can be to spread out the purchase of your assets into other more stable and reliable investments.

Gen Z relies on technology to stay educated. YouTube and other videos are the preferred learning methods; only teachers rank higher as a source of learning.

Millennials, the generation closest to Gen Z, have similar habits, with internet searches being their top method for learning about financial information. Unlike Millennials, Gen Z also utilizes TikTok at a huge rate to get more financial information.

Importantly across generations, friends/family were the number two source of financial information. The only generation that departed were Boomers, who considered friends/family their number one source of finance-related information.

However, there are still gaps in Gen Z’s financial knowledge. Gen Z tends to struggle when it comes to credit and debt management. Understanding your credit score is important, particularly when it comes to how your credit score impacts car insurance and other areas.

According to surveys, Gen Z is particularly worried about paying their taxes. In fact, paying taxes, managing debt, and borrowing money are the biggest areas of concern for Gen Z. During the pandemic, Gen Z faced huge struggles—39% said they lost their jobs, were furloughed, or faced a temporary layoff. As a result, stories about the Great Recession and the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic have left Gen Z particularly concerned about their financial health and well-being. One other concern Gen Z faces is the present inflationary bubble.

Interest in taxes for Gen Z seems to be driven by income. 37% of those who made less than $50,000 cited “how to do my taxes” as the number one skill they’d like to learn vs. 31% for those who made more than $50,000.

Debt is another area of huge concern for Gen Z. During 2020, Millennials and Gen Z saw the greatest debt growth. Again, income played a direct role, with those making more than $50,000 being less concerned about debt than those who made under $50,000. One particular area of concern is student loans. Being incredibly well-educated means that Gen Z has also taken on larger student loan debt. Consider using a tool to calculate how to refinance your student loans to lower your monthly payments.

Gen Z excels in many different areas. The key for them is to continue taking control of their finances by self-educating. However, self-education isn’t enough. Gen Zers that want to make the most out of their finances also must adopt a mindset of personal responsibility and self-empowerment.

That means understanding how to live within your means, evaluating your spending and savings habits, and making any changes to put yourself on secure financial footing even if that means making sacrifices or delaying desirable purchases.

AUTHOR

Sam Bocetta

Sam Bocetta is a retired defense contractor for the U.S. Navy, freelance journalist and part-time cybersecurity coordinator at AssignYourWriter. He specializes in finding solutions to seemingly-impossible ballistics engineering problems. Sam writes independently for a handful of security publications, reporting on trends in international trade, InfoSec, cryptography, cyberwarfare, and cyberdefense.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The UK’s Single-Payer Healthcare System Has Become a State Religion—and It’s Failing thumbnail

The UK’s Single-Payer Healthcare System Has Become a State Religion—and It’s Failing

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The National Health Service has become a heavily bureaucratic and inefficient state monopoly.


The NHS (National Health Service) is known to be the closest thing to a state religion in the UK. During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, households around the country clapped outside their front doors in order to thank the NHS for its service.

The British healthcare system is “our” NHS and is claimed to be one of the best things about the UK. However, in reality the collectivism which nationalized healthcare promotes denies individuals their autonomy and places their healthcare in the hands of the heavily bureaucratic and inefficient state monopoly.

Due to the almost theocratic attitude that the British public has of the NHS, criticism is highly frowned upon and NHS failures are often excused. One of the biggest excuses of NHS failure is the claim that it is underfunded. For one, this is not true as NHS spending has continued to increase, especially throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this accusation leads to a bigger question for the collectivists: considering a general election is bound to happen every five years in the UK, why are you potentially putting healthcare in the hands of a party you believe will underfund it?

The political process is subject to mood swings and political parties have different focuses. Individuals are forced to pay however much the current government dictates. This means that during economic turmoil, a healthy household which is struggling to put food on the table will still have to pay national insurance, despite rarely using it. Individuals should have control over what is prioritized financially in their household. There’s no point having expensive subscriptions to services you don’t use when you need other services more. Under a free market system, if an individual’s financial situation is tough they would be able to choose cheaper healthcare insurance.

In addition, under a single-payer healthcare system, patients get what they’re given and do not have much choice over it.

For example, in the UK during the Covid pandemic, 25,000 patients were discharged from the hospital to care homes without testing or isolation arrangements. This contributed significantly to 20,000 people in care homes dying after testing positive between March and June 2020. It’s clear that care home patients were an afterthought when it came to the NHS’s Covid response. They were not treated as consumers which a business would attempt to appeal and cater to. Instead, the country’s elderly were treated as pawns in the NHS’s strategy to deal with the pandemic.

Furthermore, those who want better quality healthcare don’t have much choice unless they want to go private. If an elderly person wants better healthcare, they don’t have much control other than getting what the state decides they should receive. Under a free market system, they would be able to have more choice over their healthcare. However, even if the state does decide to spend more on healthcare, national insurance increases probably won’t specifically target the needs of the patient since national insurance is standardised to the taxpayer.

If an individual does want to pay for private healthcare, they still have to pay for national insurance on top of that. This means that private healthcare isn’t realistically accessible to working-class people, making them dependent on state healthcare which is extremely inefficient and uncomfortable for many in the UK. The NHS is not a safety net, but a trap for working-class Britons which they cannot escape if they find the quality of care inadequate.

With increases in waiting times, both for A&E and GP appointments, it seems that having a healthcare system that is “free to the point of use” is pointless if those who need it can’t use it due to being on endless waiting lists. Single-payer healthcare sacrifices choice for “free” healthcare. Instead, the UK should focus on affordable healthcare through the free market. This would provide patients with genuine choice, making the healthcare system more comfortable, accessible and efficient.

AUTHOR

Jess Gill

Jess Gill is a British libertarian content creator. She is the host of Reasoned UK where she makes daily videos on British politics through a libertarian perspective.

RELATED ARTICLE: Guilty Secrets and The Fall of the National Health Service in the UK

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Marxist Reasons For Mandating All Electric Cars thumbnail

VIDEO: Marxist Reasons For Mandating All Electric Cars

By Graham Ledger

The cost of integrating millions of electric cars into society (like California is mandating) is astronomical.


It’s all about controlling your freedom of movement. We are doomed To Repeat Jimmy Carter…price gouging legislation is actually price controls.

Please subscribe free to The Ledger Report by clicking here: www.GrahamLedger.com

©The Ledger Report. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Environmental Downside of Electric Vehicles

THE BIG LIE: The future is in Battery Electric Vehicles

4 Ways All Electric Vehicles Are Doing More Harm To Mankind Than Good

Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high

U.S. Naval Officer Risked It All Refusing Pentagon Vaccine Order, Navy Board Unanimously Confirmed He Did the Right Thing! thumbnail

U.S. Naval Officer Risked It All Refusing Pentagon Vaccine Order, Navy Board Unanimously Confirmed He Did the Right Thing!

By Save America Foundation

“A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.” – Christopher Reeve

Foreword by Fred Brownbill. Todays blog as we come towards Memorial Day is republished and all credits and links supplied. This officer is a true American. Fearless. Patriotic. Oath Keeper! God Bless him for what he did. I pray it helps others in similar positions. Attached is also another article you should find interesting where more military members are fighting back. Please make sure to hit that link too!

By Warner Todd Huston

A U.S. Navy board delivered a rare rebuke to the Pentagon after finding in favor of a COVID-19 vaccine objector in a unanimous decision that questioned the lawfulness of the vaccine mandate.

The case that came before the Navy’s nine-member administrative separation board struck a blow for members of the U.S. military all across the board and could serve as a precedent — leading to the end of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Navy Lt. William Moseley has over 22 years of experience and currently works as a systems test officer on the USS Bunker Hill. He states that he has over 22 years of experience, according to his Linkedin.

Moseley wanted to refuse to take the vaccine over religious objections, but upon learning that the Pentagon was issuing blanket denials for exemptions, instead of simply filing for the exemption, he decided to take his case straight to the board, according to Just the News.

“Lt. Moseley opposes the vaccine for religious reasons and could have submitted a religious accommodation request; however, when he learned that the Navy and the other services intended to implement a blanket denial policy, he began to prayerfully consider other options,” a press release from his legal representative read.

“After consulting with legal and medical experts, he became convinced that as an officer he had an obligation to take a stand against the unlawful order and be a voice for thousands of enlisted Sailors.

“Lt. Moseley risked his 22-year-career and his military retirement because of his faith and his commitment to his oath of office as a military leader,” the statement added.

The Pentagon has ruled that members of the military who have refused the vaccine are acting insubordinate.

The board ruled on Friday in Lt. Moseley’s favor and found that he “did not commit misconduct by refusing the COVID-19 injection” and ruled “unanimously that Moseley should be retained in the United States Navy.”

Mosely’s attorney, R. Davis Younts, based the case on the fact that the government cannot force members of the military to take “experimental” medications, and therefore, the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is not a lawful order, according to Just the News.

Indeed, Younts demonstrated that the initially mandated vaccine was not an FDA-approved drug and further showed that the military has not made the FDA-approved vaccine available to military members.

Younts added that with the favorable decision “we are encouraged that the truth was revealed in this Board, and we hope this ground-breaking case sends a strong message to the Department of Defense,” according to Just the News.

Lt. Moseley could have simply accepted retirement and finished with the whole situation, but he risked being cashiered out of the service dishonorably if the board had ruled in favor of the Navy.

It appears that Moseley is the first career officer to win his vaccine case before the board.

Any officer who has held his commission for more than six years has the right to appeal decisions before the board, and fortunately for Moseley, the board’s decision on retention is binding on the service.

Younts said that the board’s new precedent “puts the Navy in an interesting position” concerning other officers — and, perhaps, even enlisted personnel — who are threatened with separation over refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

According to the Military Times, about 3,400 members of the U.S. military have been involuntarily separated from service for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Most have been given a general discharge, which allows them to retain their veteran’s benefits and allows them to rejoin the military after proving vaccination.

The U.S. military began the process of separating soldiers from the service in December 2021.

The Times added that by April the Marine Corps dismissed one percent of its forces over the vaccine, releasing 1,968 corpsmen. Further, the Navy shed .2 percent of its force with 798 dismissals, the Army separated 345 soldiers, a .07 percent loss, and the Air Force dumped 287 airmen, a .04 percent reduction of its forces.

Like Moseley, there are still some service members in each branch working their cases through the system, so more dismissals are yet to come.

This lends credence to Lt. Moseley’s contention that the Pentagon had issued a policy of blanket denials of exemptions despite tens of thousands of requests across all branches. As of the April 27, the Air Force had only handed out nine exemptions, the Marine Corps approved three, and the Army but one, the Times reported.

Written by : Warner Todd Huston has been writing editorials and news since 2001 but started his writing career penning articles about U.S. history back in the early 1990s. Huston has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN and several local Chicago news programs to discuss the issues of the day. Additionally, he is a regular guest on radio programs from coast to coast. Huston has also been a Breitbart News contributor since 2009. Warner works out of the Chicago area, a place he calls a “target-rich environment” for political news.

Lastly, is the one that may cost the American taxpayers a bundle.  The below article reports that 500 military members have just sued the government for forcing them to take the clot shot that never gained full approval status.  I’m not sure how the court will deal with this one because the Ferris Doctrine generally prevents military members from suing.  If successful, however, it will come with a huge price tag for American taxpayers.

Do we even have a physically fit, battle-ready military at present.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

National Geographic Magazine Goes Woke And Falls For The Climate Change Myth thumbnail

National Geographic Magazine Goes Woke And Falls For The Climate Change Myth

By Dr. Rich Swier

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” John F. Kennedy


It appears that National Geographic has fallen for another climate change hoax. In a May 25th, 2022 National Geographic article titled “Climate change is eroding a precious resource: sleep” Alejandra Borunda reported,

Now a new study links sleep loss—and by extension, all the problems that come with it—with climate change. Researchers from the University of Copenhagen found that ever-warmer nighttime temperatures, nudged higher by climate change, push bedtimes later and wake times earlier, costing us precious nighttime rest.

Sleepers tracked in the study, published last week in the journal One Earth, lost rest even in places where temperatures weren’t blazingly high, and had trouble adapting to even mildly challenging sleep temperatures. And sleep costs, the researchers warn, will rise as temperatures do, potentially costing sleepers—that is, all of us—an extra 13 to 15 days of poor sleep each year by the end of the century.

Click here to view the image that National Geographic uses for this article. If I lived in this hovel sleeping on a concrete floor, I could understand why I can’t get any sleep too.

Let me get this straight, global warming can cause you to lose sleep?

The revised and expanded third edition of Hot Talk, Cold Science by distinguished astrophysicist Dr. S. Fred Singer’s lucid, yet hard, scientific look at climate change.

Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations on and failures of climate models, solar variability along with the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, plus factors that could mitigate any human impact on world climate.

Singer’s masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of increased CO2 levels as well as any modest warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would have a highly positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” (like “carbon” taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations.

Who’s Behind One Earth?

To understand one must look at who founded One Earth. Both the founder President Justin Winters and co-founder and Deputy Director Karl Burkart of One Earth were the Executive Director  and Director of Media, Science & Technology at the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation respectively. In July 2019 the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation (LDF), Emerson Collective, and Global Wildlife Conservation merged. They’re now know as Earth Alliance. According to their website,

Earth Alliance, a new organization to help address the urgent threats to our planet’s life support systems – born out of the shared passion of its founding co-chairs: environmental activist and Academy Award®-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio, businesswoman and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, and investor and philanthropist Brian Sheth.

Launched in response to a growing climate crisis and staggering loss of biodiversity threatening the stability of life on Earth, the Alliance marks a shared commitment to addressing these intertwined threats.

These are radical environmentalists with the goal to further the myth of global cooling, global warming and climate change. They are in bed with the current administration.

CNN jumped on board with this sleep loss stating,

People around the world are likely to lose 50 to 58 hours of sleep a year by 2099 due to the climate crises, a new study revealed.

[ … ]

Adults should get seven to nine hours of sleep, according to the National Sleep Foundation. The likelihood of getting less than seven hours of sleep increased by 3.5% if minimum outside nighttime temperatures exceeded 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius) compared with the baseline temperature of 41 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit (5 to 10 degrees Celsius), the study found.

Saava.com provides this chart titled Sleep recommendations by age:

Age Group Age Range Recommended Amount of Sleep
Newborns 0-3 months old 14-17 hours of sleep
Infants 4-11 months old 12-15 hours of sleep
Toddlers 1-2 years old 11-14 hours of sleep
Pre-schoolers 3-5 years old 10-13 hours of sleep
School-aged kids 6-13 years old 9-11 hours of sleep
Teenagers 14-17 years old 8-10 hours of sleep
Young adults 18-25 years old 7-9 hours of sleep
Adults 26-64 years old 7-9 hours of sleep
Older adults 65+ years old 7-8 hours of sleep

The Bottom Line

The older you get the less sleep you need. Get it? Got it? Good.

The climate has nothing to do with it.

So who does this really impact, if anyone at all? Those who don’t have central air-conditioning. So by 2099 approximately 3.5% of you could get less sleep by sleeping in temperatures over 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Hmmmmm. How about your turn your thermostats down!

Don’t have central air-conditioning? Then you need to get it or god forbid 3.5% of you’ll will lose some sleep.

Do you see how insane this is? It’s a myth that can’t be proven until 2099.

As alarmists clamor to impose draconian government restrictions on entire populations in order to combat “climate change,” Dr. S. Fred Singer in Hot Talk, Cold Science reveals some startling, stubborn contradictory facts, including:

  • CO2 has not caused temperatures or sea levels to rise beyond historical rates.
  • Severe storms have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1970—neither have heat waves nor droughts.
  • Global change is not harming coral reefs.
  • Any increases in CO2 concentrations across huge time spans (there have been a few) haven’t preceded rising global temperatures; they’ve followed them by about six to eight hundred years—just the opposite of alarmist claims.
  • Alarmist climate scientists have hidden their raw temperature data and deleted emails—then undermined the peer-review system to squelch debate.

An thus ends this lesson on the many myths of climate change. Get to bed and get some sleep.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Biden Admin: K-12 Schools Must Put Boys In Girls’ Bathrooms To Get Federal Lunch Money thumbnail

Biden Admin: K-12 Schools Must Put Boys In Girls’ Bathrooms To Get Federal Lunch Money

By The Geller Report

If only Democrats worked as hard as hardening school security and providing armed police than they do endangering our girls…..

By: Joy Pullman, The Federalist, May 26, 2022:

K-12 schools must allow boys into girls’ private areas to obtain federal funds for lunches, breakfasts, and snacks, the Biden administration announced this month. A U.S. Department of Education spokesman told The Federalist the Biden administration’s press releases from several agencies announcing this policy will be followed by formal rulemaking in June.

“It seems to be playing politics with feeding poor kids, which is really unfortunate,” John Elcesser, executive director of the Indiana Non-Public Education Association, said via phone amid weeks of attempting to sort out these new demands with government officials on behalf of private schools in his state. “Because if a school feels like they cannot participate because it’s in conflict with their mission or values, if a religious exemption is not granted, you’re taking away a program that’s feeding low-income kids.”

Before many schools shut down in response to Covid-19, the National School Lunch Program fed nearly 30 million kids every school day, in approximately 100,000 public and private schools and residential care facilities.

Under this new demand, establishments that accept any federal food funding, including food stamps, must also allow males who claim to be female to access female private spaces, such as showers, bathrooms, and sleeping areas. Such organizations must also follow protocols such as requiring staff to use inaccurate pronouns to describe transgender people and allowing male staff to dress as women while on the job.

Religious institutions, however, qualify for a waiver exempting them from these requirements, said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Greg Baylor in an interview Monday. According to the 1972 Title IX law, he said, religious institutions don’t have to file any paperwork to be exempt, although they can if they wish.

Baylor noted, however, that publicly affirming a commitment to sexual reality by seeking an exemption acknowledgment from federal agencies may assist extremist pressure campaigns. The activist group Human Rights Campaign’s blueprint for the Biden administration pushed for narrowing religious exemptions for multiple federal regulations and for the administration to “out” individuals and institutions who request such exemptions.

The Biden administration appears to be following that blueprint closely. According to Elcesser, USDA officials are telling schools to file paperwork to be exempt, although the Title IX law says that’s an option but not required. The USDA confirmed that to The Federalist Tuesday with this emailed statement: “Organizations may request a religious exemption by submitting a written declaration to the Secretary of Agriculture identifying the provisions that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.”

Government schools can receive no exemption. At best, parents and taxpayers can urge school districts to not comply while inevitable lawsuits over the Biden administration’s interpretation work through courts for years.

“The Biden administration is grossly extending the Bostock holding where it does not belong. Like many of the Biden administration’s power grabs, this imposition transgresses areas of proper state and local authority. As the principal guardians of federalism, state attorneys general have the ability to combat such overreach where it injures state functions,” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, told The Federalist in a statement.

Even if this regulation is ultimately overturned by one means or another, millions of American children will be forced to eat their school lunches with a side of sexual politics.

“There is a lot of harm that comes from inflicting this interpretation of Title IX on public schools and private schools that are not eligible for the exemption,” Baylor said. In Loudoun County, Virginia, in 2021, a young woman was sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a young man granted access by the district’s transgender policies.

Parents have told The Federalist that their daughters no longer use the bathrooms or locker rooms at their public schools because they don’t feel safe there. Many parents are finding after the fact that school districts are helping their children live as the opposite sex and hide that from their families.

“Some percentage of school districts want to be told by the federal government that they have to implement gender ideology,” Baylor observed. “If anyone complains, they can say, ‘We’re just doing what they told us. Go blame Joe Biden, not me.’”

As Biden promised to do while campaigning, his administration is pushing sexual confusion on as many institutions as it can. This aim has gotten a huge boost from the 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, an unconstitutional ruling that gives this extremist sexual agenda a legal fig leaf. That 5-4 decision clinched by President Donald Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, concerned sex differences not in education but employment……

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MISINFORMATION WATCH: Young Women Speaks Truth About Upside Down Conditions in America Today [Video] thumbnail

MISINFORMATION WATCH: Young Women Speaks Truth About Upside Down Conditions in America Today [Video]

By Dr. Rich Swier

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

Disinformation is a subset of propaganda and is defined as false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people.

Malinformation or malicious information is having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone; given to, marked by, or arising from malice or malicious gossip.


It’s an upside down America

This young women speaks truth about how upside down conditions are in America today

Before and since the Uvalde Massacre there has been an ongoing effort to idolize criminals and criminality. It was a tweet, below, from Barrack Hussein Obama about the Uvalde Massacre that helps understand who and what is important to him and by inference the entire Democrat Party.

In one tweet Obama has chosen a black convicted felon over the police. By doing so he also chosen lawlessness over the rule of law.

As we grieve the children of Uvalde today, we should take time to recognize that two years have passed since the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer. His killing stays with us all to this day, especially those who loved him.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 25, 2022

Here is Jason Whitlock’s take on cops at the Uvalde Massacre school shooting stating in a tweet, “When your culture makes George Floyd the hero, real heroes stand down. Cultural rot has consequences.”

I’m not defending the actions of the officers. But we’ve demonized law enforcement to the point that there are far fewer rewards for being a hero, for taking risks. When your culture makes George Floyd the hero, real heroes stand down. Cultural rot has consequences. https://t.co/1YvYt121qt

— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) May 26, 2022

Cultural rot has consequences

This video interview by Jason Whitlock says everything you need to know about Barrack Hussein Obama, the current policies of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., his administration and goals of the Democrat Party.

Here is a tweet by Socialist Democrat Alexandra-Ocasio Cortez with a reply from Candice Owens that explains the evil incarnate mis, dis and malinformation that is part and parcel of the Democrat Party.

Name the law you are referring to. What United States law, specifically, “lets children be shot in their schools”.

You won’t name it because it doesn’t exist.

You are shameless, bought-and-paid for politician, standing on the bodies of dead children to score political points. https://t.co/3IzlAcVvmH

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) May 25, 2022

Recently Robert Hutchinson pointed out the following about recent massacres:

  • In 2017, a far-left Democrat and supporter of Bernie Sanders, James Hodgkinson, opened fire on a couple of dozen Congressional Republicans during softball practice, seriously wounding Representative Steve Scalise and lobbyist Mike Mika. Yet at no point did members of the Democratic Party or the corporate media begin clamoring for investigations into the dangers of socialism or of far-left Democratic Party activism.
  • Just a year earlier, a deranged black nationalist and Black Lives Matter supporter named Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed a group of police officers in Dallas. Armed with a Saiga AK-74 assault rifle, the Afghanistan veteran was able to shoot five officers dead and wounded nine others in the deadliest incident against law enforcement since 9/11. Yet there was not a single report on CNN and NBC News calling for investigations into the openly racist ideology behind Black Lives Matter or into the black nationalism that Johnson espoused.
  • In 2019, 24-year-old Connor Betts shot and killed nine people and wounded 17 others in Dayton, Ohio – an incident the media labeled as an act of racist white supremacy. The problem was, investigations quickly revealed that Betts was an avowed Satanist and supporter of far-left Antifa who hated Donald Trump and urged all his friends to vote only for Democrats.

The conclusion is that its not white supremacy or a gun, its the mis, dis and malinformation of some to further their political agenda.

It’s all about the cultural rot and mis, dis and malinformation that has taken hold in our nation and its consequences.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Are You Ready to Pay the Price of Equity and Equal Outcomes? thumbnail

Are You Ready to Pay the Price of Equity and Equal Outcomes?

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Monday is Memorial Day when we honor all military members who died while serving in the U.S. armed forces.  Unfortunately, the Army just lowered its physical fitness standards, a move critics say will get more U.S. soldiers killed.

Too many women were failing the physical fitness test under so-called “gender-neutral” standards, meaning identical requirements for men and women.  So the Army reinstated sex-norming, creating a different test with lower standards for women and older men.  They have to pick up less weight and get more time to complete a run. Senator Tom Cotton called the new test a “fiasco” that will “get people killed.”   That may be an overstatement, because the new test just measures basic physical fitness and does not change the additional requirements for combat roles or specialized jobs. However, there is already indication that’s what’s coming next.  Earlier this year, a whistleblower accused the Air Force of fudging physical fitness standards for a female candidate so she could make it through Special Tactics training.  Senator Cotton and other critics have a point when they highlight the Pentagon’s preoccupation with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ and ‘fairness’ for women.  How would you like to be in combat alongside someone who you know didn’t really meet the standards to be there?

Lowering standards in the name of diversity or some other value is also going on outside the military. Critics say the preoccupation with diversity has damaged science and will ultimately mean fewer scientific discoveries in the future.  Democrats in Maryland want to keep police from removing homeless camps on public property.  Critics say the bill encourages law-breaking and vagrancy.

But nowhere is the lowering of standards more apparent than in education.

California is taking another stab at Woke Math which, like the first version, still lowers standards in the name of promoting racial justice and equal outcomes.

The California University System wants to do away with grades because students don’t all start in the same place and ‘equity’ must be served.

‘Equity’ was the battle cry of a high school principal in San Diego who eliminated racial disparities in honors classes by doing away with the classes altogether. Who did this hurt? Minority students who excel and will now have a harder time getting into top schools.

Some high schools in Colorado are doing away with class valedictorians. Learning is not a competition, they say, and all students can learn at high levels.  Following that logic, they should make every student valedictorian. Beats a participation trophy, doesn’t it?

The American Bar Association wants to do away with the LSAT law school entrance exam to increase diversity.   That’s funny.  MIT is bringing back standardized testing requirements to find talent and identify disadvantaged students, who with a little help, could be ready for MIT.

Georgetown Law, my alma mater, is changing its Property class to focus on structural racism and cultural appropriation.  Good luck passing the bar exam or serving your clients well if all you know is a bunch of Woke drivel.

A Seattle school has a new disciplinary policy which considers race when handing out punishments for breaking the rules.  Critics say this will lead to whites being punished more frequently and severely so the schools can even up the numbers of each racial group getting disciplined.

Thanks to new race-based admissions policies, Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia – formerly one of the top high schools in the country – is now reduced to offering remedial education and tutoring at the 8th-grade level to entering students.  TJ used to be an elite school for smart kids.  No more.

Students benefit more from higher expectations than from lower standards, including minority and low-income students.  That’s a fact.  So, when Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke tells you lowering standards is essential for promoting diversity in college classrooms, she is leading you astray.

As the stories I’ve told you today show, the mindless preoccupation with diversity is a good way to damage science, hold minorities back from being all they can be and, maybe, even get soldiers killed.  If we did a poll, I bet we would get a lot of support for lowering standards if diversity is the only goal.  But if we changed the poll question to ‘do you support an exclusive focus on diversity given all the drawbacks that will have and all the damage it will do,’ I bet support would drop significantly.  It’s easy to say ‘I want free ice cream,’ but not so easy when you factor in rotten teeth and expensive trips to the dentist.    It’s time to end the exclusive preoccupation with diversity and bring things into better balance.  MIT is showing the way.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Welcome To The ‘Green’ Digital Gulag thumbnail

Welcome To The ‘Green’ Digital Gulag

By Center For Security Policy

The convergence of the Communist and capitalist wellsprings of the new world order – and its ominous implications for Americans and others who love freedom – was on display in Davos, Switzerland yesterday.

At the globalist World Economic Forum, the Chinese Communist Party’s tech giant, Alibaba, unveiled the next big thing in the planet’s inexorable march to the Digital Gulag. It’s called a “personal carbon footprint tracker.”

Evidently, we need not be concerned that Alibaba is a key enabler of the CCP’s totalitarian surveillance state and its uber- Orwellian “Social Credit System.” That’s because, while this tracker will monitor your whereabouts, travel, personal consumption and behavior – offering you inducements to do “the right thing ” – there’s no reason to worry that all of that data will be collected and monitored by Communist China because, you see, it’s “green.”

And you will like being green.

This is Frank Gaffney.

RELATED ARTICLES:

World Economic Forum: Individual ‘Carbon Footprint Trackers’ To Monitor What You Buy, What You Eat, Where/How You Travel.

What Iran is learning from Russia’s 2,000 missile strikes in Ukraine

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column and podcast are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why Those Under 60 Are More Likely to Die if Jabbed thumbnail

Why Those Under 60 Are More Likely to Die if Jabbed

By MERCOLA Take Control of Your Health

Well, the COVID jab pushers have had to resort to all sorts of obfuscation to hide the fact that the injections don’t work, and now they’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses. According to a recent Reuters report,1 “Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working.”

This irrational explanation has been levied in response to studies showing COVID-jabbed individuals are getting infected at higher rates than the unjabbed, and there are many such studies.

“These studies are likely to involve statistical errors, particularly if they did not account for different contact patterns among vaccinated versus unvaccinated people,” Korryn Bodner, a research associate in infectious disease modeling in Toronto, told Reuters. Bodner is the first author of a preprint study2 posted on medRxiv at the end of April 2022.

Bodner’s claim is that those who got the jab may be more likely to throw caution to the wind and mingle with others, hence getting infected more frequently, while the unjabbed may be more cautious because they know they’re vulnerable. This rationale is dubious at best, considering:

a)The unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal

b)Those who have taken the jab are, by and large, a far more fearful lot; they tend to listen to the “authorities” and take all of their advice to heart, which would include avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask

Check out the following story, reported by Anchorage Daily News:3

“Arianne Bennett recalled her husband, Scott Bennett, saying, ‘But I’m vaxxed. But I’m vaxxed,’ from the Washington hospital bed where he struggled to fight off COVID-19 this winter … Bennett went to get his booster in early December after returning to Washington from a lodge he owned in the Poconos, where he and his wife hunkered down for fall.

Just a few days after his shot, Bennett began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, meaning he was probably exposed before the extra dose of immunity could kick in. His wife suspects he was infected at a dinner where he and his server were unmasked at times …

‘He was absolutely shocked. He did not expect to be sick. He really thought he was safe,’ Arianne Bennett recalled. ‘And I’m like, ‘But baby, you’ve got to wear the mask all the time. All the time. Up over your nose.’”

Within days of his third dose, he got a serious case of COVID. Yet they blame it on hypothetical exposure to an apparently healthy food server. This kind of irrational reasoning is prevalent among those who got the jabs and who keep going back for more as they are part of the 30% of the population that have been completely brainwashed.

To reiterate what I’ve explained since 2020, asymptomatic spread is likely to be so rare as to be nonexistent.4 It was a lie perpetuated to drive up fear and prop up rising “case” rates that didn’t really exist. It’s basic virology that you cannot transmit a virus unless you have a “hot” infection, and if you have an active, transmissible infection, you have symptoms. The symptoms are a sign that your body’s defenses are kicking in to rid itself of the live virus.

No symptoms, no transmission. So, unless the server was feeling sick and went to work anyway, the simplest explanation for Bennett’s demise was the shot itself. And if the server was sick, the fact that Bennett got so ill suggests the shot is ineffective, even at two doses.

The pro-pharma shills want you to believe there are so many confounding variables, we can’t possibly draw any conclusions from data showing the shots don’t work. Yet looking at data from a wide spectrum of sources, all show the same alarming trends. What “confounding factor” could possibly account for ALL of them being misinterpreted?

An Unproven Hypothesis

Reuters5 does note that Bodner’s simulations “do not prove that this type of bias affected studies of vaccine effectiveness versus the Omicron variant.” What it does show, according to Bodner, is that “even if vaccines work, increased contact among vaccinated persons can lead to the appearance of the vaccine not working.”

In other words, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. Her modeling suggests it COULD make the jabs appear ineffective IF those who got the jab actually behave very differently from the unjabbed.

But again, it’s highly unlikely that the unvaccinated are avoiding exposure by steering clear of close contacts and crowds to a greater degree than those who got the jab. It’s far more reasonable to suspect that the shots don’t work.

On a side note, Bodner’s study was funded by the Canada COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.6 This task force is housed at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and McGill University is a long-term recipient of grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.7,8,9,10

What Do the Data Say About COVID Jab Effectiveness?

Based on data from around the world, it seems clear that the COVID gene transfer injections are not working. In fact, they’re having the opposite effect of what you’d expect from a real vaccine. According to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal data,11 in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID in the U.S. had received the jab.

In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%. In December 2021 and January 2022, just under half of all the COVID patients in intensive care at Kaiser Permanente’s hospital system in Northern California had also received one or more shots.12

Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, so why would the jabbed die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one?

One attempt at an explanation is that the fatalities are now occurring primarily among the elderly. Nearly two-thirds of those who died from COVID during the Omicron wave were 75 and older. During the Delta wave, 75-year-olds and older accounted for just one-third of the deaths.13

But that was the case from the beginning, and it still doesn’t answer the question: Why would old people be more likely to die from a milder virus than a more serious one? To answer that question, the injection pushers revert back to the argument of waning potency. Two-thirds of those who died in January and February 2022 did not have a booster shot. According to Anchorage Daily News:14

“Experts say the rising number of vaccinated people dying should not cause panic in those who got shots, the vast majority of whom will survive infections. Instead, they say, these deaths serve as a reminder that vaccines are not foolproof and that those in high-risk groups should consider getting boosted and taking extra precautions during surges.”

So, in other words, the jab only works for a handful of months, and then you have to take another. And another. And another. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,15 the first two doses wear off after five months, necessitating a third dose, and the third dose wears off in just four months, at which time you’re supposed to get dose No. 4.

Israeli data16 show the effectiveness of shot No. 4 in preventing severe disease declines by 56% in just seven weeks. So, it appears the protection you get from the shots keeps getting shorter with each dose. Meanwhile, data show the shots can render you increasingly susceptible to all manner of infection and disease, through a wide variety of mechanisms.

Moderna Trial Data Reveal Repeated Infections Are Likely

Among such data is a preprint study17 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, which found adult participants in Moderna’s COVID jab trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.

Curiously, placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections. As reported by The Defender:18

“[T]he authors found that using the presence of anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies to determine whether a person was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 will miss some infections. Thus, the sensitivity of this kind of test, when applied to vaccinated individuals, is not ideal.

However, there are more important implications19,20 of these findings … Specifically, the study implies that the reduced ability of a vaccinated individual to produce antibodies to other portions of the virus may lead to a greater risk of future infections in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

It is important to note that this is not just another argument for the superiority of natural immunity. Rather, this is evidence suggesting that even after a vaccinated person has a breakthrough infection, that individual still does not acquire the same level of protection against subsequent exposures that an unvaccinated person acquires.

This is a troubling finding, and something investigators conducting the Moderna vaccine trial likely knew in 2020.”

UK Data Confirm Results

These findings are corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report21 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections have lower levels of these antibodies — a finding they attributed to the protective benefit of the shot:

“These lower anti N responses in individuals with breakthrough infections (post-vaccination) compared to primary infections likely reflect the shorter and milder infections in these patients.”

However, this interpretation is likely flawed, because less severe infection is associated with lower viral load, and as the study above demonstrated, the “vaccinated” have lower anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels than the unvaccinated at all viral load levels, but especially so at the lowest viral loads. As noted by The Defender:22

“This is one of the most significant findings of the study because it overturns the heretofore unchallenged idea that decreased seroconversion in the vaccinated is due to less severe infection in this population — which is a benefit provided by the vaccine.

However, this new study shows that even at low viral loads, the unvaccinated are more likely to seroconvert than those who are vaccinated. In fact, the difference in seroconversion rates is the greatest at lowest viral loads. The decrease in conversion rates is not a result of a benefit from the vaccine. It is a consequence of it.”

Boosted Now Have Three to Four Times Higher Case Rates

The Defender also reviews other U.K. data showing the COVID case rate is three to four times higher among those who have received a booster shot, compared to the unvaccinated. This is true for all age groups with the exception of children under 18:23

“What could explain such a large increase in infection rates among the boosted? Interestingly, the authors … warn that the unvaccinated may have contracted COVID-19 prior to the observation period — in other words, they may have acquired natural immunity previously, giving them added protection …

But their own data tells the opposite story. The boosted are more likely to contract the disease — by a factor of 3 to 4. How do we know whether the larger infection rates in the boosted are due to more robust immunity in the unvaccinated because of prior infection or due to an immune deficiency in the boosted?

The question can be definitively answered by examining the trend of infection rates [using] … the equivalent table from two months earlier. There is still a greater infection rate among the boosted, but it is only two to three times higher. If the authors’ hypothesis was correct, the more recent data should have shown less of a difference, not more.

If anything, their data support the finding that the decreased seroconversion rates in the vaccinated may be causing a greater risk of repeated infections.”

Walgreens’ Data

Data from the pharmacy chain Walgreens in the U.S. also reveal the same trend — COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed, and those who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.

As you can see in the screenshot from Walgreens’ COVID-19 tracker24 below, during the week of May 9 through 15, 2022, 21.4% of unvaccinated individuals who got tested for COVID got a positive result. Of those who had gotten just one COVID shot, the positivity rate was 26.3%.

Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 31.3% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 32.7%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.

CLICK HERE FOR THE INFOGRAPHIC: POSITIVITY RATE BY VACCINATION STATUS 05/09/2022 – 05/15/2022

More Jabs, More COVID Deaths

Covid Deaths vs. Vaccination Status

🌍 Comparison of:

—Africa (Pop. ~1.37 Billion)

—Europe (Pop. ~748 Million)

—S. America (Pop. ~434 Million)

—N. America (Pop. ~596 Million)

Source: Our World In Data pic.twitter.com/srGwEkGKLF

— Lindsay (@TexasLindsay) April 23, 2022

Perhaps most disturbing of all are the data showing the COVID shots are raising mortality rates, both from COVID and other causes. Above is an animated illustration25 sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.

Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it’s nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.

Here’s another one,26 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did excess mortality.

United States 🇺🇸

Source: Our World In Data pic.twitter.com/E2KCE9Si3o

— Lindsay (@TexasLindsay) April 25, 2022

Risk-Benefit Analyses

We also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. A risk-benefit analysis27 by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.

Another analysis,28 which relied on data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), concluded that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there’s no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.

If you’re under 18, you’re a shocking 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15. Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out.

A third risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands was published in June 2021, in the journal Vaccines.29 The paper caused such an uproar, part of the editorial board resigned in protest.30 The journal retracted the paper, but after a thorough re-review, it was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.31

These researchers concluded that, “as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths.”32 A fourth, still preliminary, analysis — based on more than 1,700 death reports collected by Steve Kirsch — shows the shots do more harm than good in anyone under age 60. Kirsch writes:33

“Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people.

In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem. The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn’t. These preliminary results are both statistically significant …

The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it’s clear that vaccination makes it more likely you’ll die, not less likely.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FIGURE 1 – VACCINATED DEATHS

Figure 1. Red dot below error bar = vax works. Red dot above error bar = vax likely causes harm. Red dot inside the error bar = Insufficient evidence to justify taking a new, unproven vaccine. Conclusion: Vaccine shouldn’t be considered unless there is a clear benefit. 60 and older seems to justify use based on the data we have so far. Limitations: we are waiting for others to confirm / challenge the analysis. See text34 for more info. Joel Smalley did the analysis.

While some analyses present a direr picture than others, taken together, it’s clear that there appears to be no long term benefits to the COVID jabs. We’re consistently ending up with a higher cost than can conceivably be considered reasonable. The pro-pharma side will likely continue to lob flimsy excuses at the data, but at some point, the truth will be so clear that even the blind will see it. Until that day, continue to inform yourself and share what you find.

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Three Mistakes about the Common Good thumbnail

Three Mistakes about the Common Good

By The Catholic Thing

Michael Pakaluk: The idea that the common good can be found in Roe v. Wade is gravely mistaken, since it subordinates the good of the unborn to the born.


Iwant to draw attention to three mistakes about Aquinas’ teaching on the common good which are encouraged by some presentations today of so-called “common good” jurisprudence. If we take Aquinas to represent “the classical view,” then these are mistakes, too, about classical thought.

Begin with Aquinas’s famous, four-part account of the essence of law: any law, he says, is:

(1) a precept of reason,

(2) directed to the common good,

(3) set down by a competent authority, and

(4) promulgated.

Because this is an account of the essence of something, you simply can’t have that thing at all, Aquinas thinks, unless all the parts of the account are somehow verified in it.

What this means is that anything that can in any way count as law, by definition – by its very essentia – is directed to some conception of a common good.  Aquinas remarks that even the laws of a tyrant promote a common good: they propose in effect that the citizens should together find their good in promoting the personal good of the tyrant.

This is the first mistake, then: it’s misleading for any party, or school of interpretation, to claim that they are offering something distinctive or different, because they favor connecting the law to the common good.  All law does that, of necessity.  Nothing can count as “law” unless it is ordered to a common good.

All the interesting questions, then, involve what conception of the common good is implicit in a law.  Does it promote what Aquinas calls “the true good” (verum bonum) or something else?  Is its implicit conception something we can really embrace?  Is it perhaps incoherent, or self-defeating, or calculated to lead to bad things despite someone’s good intentions?

Even Roe v. Wade contained conceptions of the common good, of course:  a conception of the autonomy of the professions (the inviolability of “a decision made in consultation with one’s doctor”); of the equality of women, and what is necessary for that; and a conception of the limits of government’s power to proscribe.

These conceptions were and remain gravely mistaken.  Certainly they are disputable by fair-minded persons and cannot be held to be built into the very social compact of the United States. Obviously, too, any “common good” implicit in Roe includes the good only of born human beings, subordinating the good of the unborn to the born. In that sense, Roe’s conception of the common good is tyrannical.

But the point is that both sides claim to promote the common good.  The debate hinges on what that truly is, not whether it is invoked.  To say that the master key is to introduce the premise that the law should be ordered to the common good is a mistake and a diversion.

The second mistake as regards “the classical view,” is to describe the common good of human law without reference to the virtues and to God, but to regard it as a social system of economic and political instrumentalities, even construing classical language such as “public peace” and “public order” in this way.

Aquinas does not do this.  In his discussion of human law specifically, he does not separate peace from virtue: “in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed.”  Indeed, making those subject to it good, he says, following Aristotle, is the goal of law: “if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply.”

Again, because piety is a central human virtue for Aquinas, not surprisingly he approves of Isidore’s claim that a chief purpose of human law should be “to foster religion.”

On “the classical view” one cannot avoid these matters by saying, as Adrian Vermeule does, that it’s possible to confine one’s discussion to “the order of nature” and avoid “the order of grace.”  On Aquinas’s view, human beings precisely as natural creatures, cannot attain even “temporal happiness” except through exercising the virtues – and as rational creatures they are ordered to God, who is the ultimate common good of society.  As John Paul II liked to emphasize, it’s inherent in the human person to have a transcendent character, and the common good of human society must be framed correspondingly. Religion after all is a pagan virtue.

The great theologian, Johannes Messner, writing in his 1949 Social Ethics after the horrors of World War II, comments, “Only if a personal God is recognized as creator and lawgiver can the idea of the ‘might of right’ possess its quite definite authority; otherwise, there can be no compelling reason why the principle ‘might is right’ should not in one way or another prevail.”

This brings me to the third mistake, which is that current presentations of the common good seem to downplay the necessity of liberty, identifying liberty with libertarianism and individualism.

This third mistake follows from the second.  Liberty is necessary for genuine virtue and for our response to God.  Downplay virtue, and liberty is easily lost from sight.  Moreover, as James Madison emphasized in his Memorial and Remonstrance, the relationship which a human being has to his creator, prior to political society and government, is a fundamental safeguard of liberty.  Prescind from our relationship to God, and how else are fundamental liberties secured?

Let Messner have the last word here: “full humanity depends essentially on [man’s] personal responsibility and self-reliant activity in carrying out the demands of his being. . . .the common good means that social cooperation makes it possible for the members of society to fulfill by their own responsibility and effort the vital tasks set for them by their existential ends. . . .although a domestic animal is not harmed in its essential nature by being provided for, the ‘provider state’ does impair man’s natural status because it takes away from him a sphere of self-determination and personal responsibility.”

You may also enjoy:

+James V. Schall, S.J.’s Common Good/Uncommon Evil

Stephen P. White’s Catholic Schools and the Common Good

AUTHOR

Michael Pakaluk

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark is The Memoirs of St Peter. His new book, Mary’s Voice in the Gospel of John: A New Translation with Commentary, is now available.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.