Monthly Archives: October 2022

Some Info About Things At The Border

Posted on by

There is a lot going on at the Border that no one is talking about, but it affects all of us.

One big problem is the whole question of human trafficking.

RIght now, it is important to become informed.  Take a look and then reflect on how this is affecting you, your family, your community, these people, and what the heck is going on and why…

https://www.theepochtimes.com/border-deception-how-the-us-and-un-are-quietly-running-the-border-crisis_4751511.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-10-01&src_cmp=mb-2022-10-01&utm_medium=email&est=G1fOSfDEK8AlcqJ3cUFIFyndzrf9LSzZ7z5UW32Rbu%2Bj5MyqfkNkxmnSFzL0GmdlLvXZ

Collecting Kid’s DNA – Hmmm

Posted on by

After Uvalde, Texas Public Schools Send Home DNA Kits For Kids

It’s the first program of its kind since the deadly mass-shooting. Security experts worry it sends families the wrong message.
A pile of DNA collection kits in white boxes
PAUL ELLIS / GETTY IMAGES

This week, Texas public schools plan to distribute DNA and fingerprint identification kits to guardians of students in kindergarten through middle school. The Child Identification Program, which became a law in 2021, requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to provide inkless in-home fingerprint and DNA identification cards to the guardians of children in the public school system in the state.

After DNA is gathered, the parent or legal guardian is asked to hold onto the child identification cards for law enforcement use in cases of emergency including if they go missing or are suspected of being human trafficked.

The program is entirely opt-in for parents and guardians, but experts warn of the message it sends to children, particularly in light of the Uvalde shooting on May 24, when 19 children were killed by an armed gunman and parents were asked to provide DNA samples to help identify the victims.

Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a school safety consulting firm, says he can see the value for parents, but cautions about what he calls “security theater”—the visible actions that may make people feel emotionally safer but actually have little effect on safety.

“I can just envision a kid coming home and the parent saying ‘Hi, how was your school day?’ and the kid reaches in the backpack, pulls out a DNA kit and says, ‘Here—our principal sent this home with us so we have all this information when the shooting occurs and if I get killed,” Trump, who is not related to the former U.S. president, told Motherboard.

According to the K-12 School Shooting Database, nearly 60 percent of active shooter incidents at educational institutions since Columbine in 1999 have occurred in high schools. Despite an increase in active shooting incidents occurring on school grounds across the country, Trump worries that sending DNA kits home as an official action of the school or governmental agency with children will undoubtedly send the message that school shootings are imminent.

“There needs to be a really strong messaging around this to make it clear that school shootings are low probability but high impact incidents,” he added. “One school shooting is one too many, but statistically we know that fortunately the vast majority of schools will never experience a mass shooting and you want to take steps that are reasonable. But you don’t want to create unintended consequences where you do more harm than good and the context where everyone’s in a state of high anxiety.”

Scott Poland, a psychology professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida and director of the Suicide and Violence Prevention Office also wonders if sending children home with ID kits send the right message.

“Is there another reason why we would be fingerprinting kids, except like thinking of identifying bodies?” Poland asks Motherboard. “I mean, that’s the part that really worries me about what exactly is behind this and then, maybe most importantly, how do we convey this to kids in a way that doesn’t sound like ‘I don’t think you’re going to be abducted and I don’t think I’m going to have to identify your body.”’

Poland says that school administrators need to remember who they are dealing with—impressionable kindergarten, elementary, and middle schoolers.

“We need to be very careful and very cognizant of the developmental level of children,” he said. “So I think sometimes we’re very well-meaning but maybe we’ve gone a little far and I’m not sure it’s, you know, the best place to focus our money if we had to do with kids’ safety.”

This article is part of State of Surveillance, made possible with the support of a grant from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights in conjunction with Arnold Ventures. The series will explore the development, deployment, and effects of surveillance and its intersection with race and civil rights.

from:    https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn7dq/after-uvalde-texas-public-schools-send-home-dna-kits-for-kids

Will YOU Eat Bugs?

Posted on by

Major Supermarket In UK Planning To Sell BUGS As Food To Help Poor People Through Winter

The supermarket is also involved with a TV game show in which insect ‘farmers’ will pitch the bugs as the ‘next big thing’

 

Steve Watson

Getty Images / Krit of Studio OMG

A major supermarket chain in the UK is finalising plans to stock insects on its shelves and market them as a cheap food source for people struggling to afford to feed their families amid soaring inflation and the cost of living crisis.

The Daily Mail reports that Aldi is considering stocking ‘edible’ bugs and providing recipe kits for parents to prepare worms and crickets for their hungry children.

Potential products in the range include ‘sustainable’ cricket burgers, as well as ‘nuggets’ and ‘mince’.

Yummmmmy.

Just when you thought this couldn’t get any more more dystopian, the supermarket is involved with a TV game show in which insect ‘farmers’ will pitch the bugs as the ‘next big thing’ for Aldi, according to the report.

One of the contestants, Aaron Thomas, commented, “We’re on a mission to change perceptions of insects as food; they’re one of the most sustainable protein sources in the world.”

Thomas further claims that crickets contain more protein than beef adding “We want to take bug consumption mainstream. If we’re able to get in front of Aldi’s audience, that would be an amazing opportunity.”

The move is the latest in a growing trend of pushing bug eating on the masses as a way of ‘saving the planet’.

Recently, Canadian company The Aspire Food Group pledged to produce 9000 tons of insects per year for human and pet consumption after completing construction of the world’s biggest cricket food processing centre.

In addition to crickets, worms and maggots are also big in Europe.

There are even proposals to feed them to school kids:

How about a weed side salad? And why not wash down your worm food with a tall refreshing glass of sewage?

in 2020, the World Economic Forum published two articles on its website which explored how people could be conditioned to get used to the idea of eating weeds, bugs and drinking sewage water in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

A separate article published on the WEF website outlined how people can be conditioned to enjoy consuming ‘food’ which on the surface sounds disgusting.

The ‘Great Reset’ is about enacting a drastic reduction in living standards for the plebs which will force them to put bugs, weeds and sewage on the menu while the Davos elites continue to feast on the finest cuisine in their ivory towers.

Will you eat the bugs?

from:    https://summit.news/2022/10/20/major-supermarket-in-uk-planning-to-sell-bugs-as-food-to-help-poor-people-through-winter/

What Did Fauci Do?

Posted on by

Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?

After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.

anthony fauci calendar pandemic feature

On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020, at 9 a.m., Dr. Anthony Fauci joined staff at the National Security Council (NSC) — the President’s national security and foreign policy advisory shop — for a meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building about the novel coronavirus.

Fauci would continue to have meetings in classified settings throughout the month.

Fauci’s calendar entries included NSC meetings, White House Situation Room meetings and meetings in other classified settings, as COVID-19 was breaking in China. (To our knowledge, the existence of these meetings before Jan. 28, 2020, was not previously disclosed.)

On Friday, Jan. 24, four days after China admitted human-to-human transmission of the virus, Fauci started attending a small group COVID-19 discussion that first took place in “Anthony’s Office” in a building next to the White House. Anthony, in this case, appears to be an NSC employee and an expert in biodefense and China.

Flashing back to December 2019, when patients in Wuhan were showing up at hospitals with unidentified pneumonia cases, Fauci attended the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — National Institutes of Health (NIH) dinner and workshops on Dec. 19 and 20 — the sixth annual event for NIH staff and Gates Foundation executives.

On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.

For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.

The refusal by NIH to follow open records law was a strategy to delay transparency: NIH forced us into expensive taxpayer-paid litigation to slow-walk 156 pages of semi-redacted calendar production.

Fauci’s calendar has 933 events during this five-month period — including 224 media interviews and 84 redacted events (only significant redactions that prevented analysis and understanding were counted, for example, phone number redactions were not included).

It’s a document that NIH and Fauci didn’t want you to see …

Why? What did Fauci know? And when did he know it?

Following Fauci’s timeline — highlights

Nov. 6, 2019: Fauci’s calendar lists “GPMB Discussion Note.” This likely deals with the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Fauci is a past member of the GPMB board which was formed to “ensure[s] preparedness for global health crises.”

On Jan. 27, 2020, the GPMB convened regarding the COVID-19 outbreak and Fauci signed off on the group’s Jan. 30, 2020, statement commending the WHO and the “transparency of China.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIAs uncovered that this statement was organized and circulated by Wellcome Trust scientist and GPMB member Jeremy Farrar (who also organized a secret conference call with Fauci and others on Feb. 1, 2020).

Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.

Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.

Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci has a call with his future biographer, Janet Tobias, who later produces the “FAUCI” documentary.

Dec. 3, 2019: Fauci has a call with Victor Dzau, who is the president of the National Academy of Medicine, a Duke University professor and a man whose Chinese family fled to Hong Kong to escape China’s civil war.

Dec. 19, 2019: Fauci attends an “NIH Gates Fdn dinner” at “The Cloisters,” likely the one in Lutherville, Maryland, an hour from NIH.

Earlier that morning, Bill Gates tweeted out what has become a much-discussed prediction, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Fauci and top officials, such as NIH director Francis Collins and Health and Human Services (HHS) assistant secretary for health Brett Giroir, joined Gates Foundation executives during the dinner and on panels the next day, according to a press report from the time.

 

Jan. 17, 2020: Fauci has a call to discuss “CDC Gao Writing Request.” This is presumably related to George Gao, Director-General of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.

Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.

LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.

It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.

By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).

Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).

In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.

Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.

Top-secret meetings

Unreported until now, throughout late January and February 2020, Fauci was in meetings with the NSC and in top-secret settings — including in the White House Situation Room. Fauci was also in small, “restricted” meetings with the NSC.

Were all these top-secret meetings known to the president, and do they give the impression people-in-the-know thought the virus had a natural origin?

Jan. 14 and 16, 2020: Fauci has a 9 a.m. “Novel Corona Virus PCC/Synch Meeting” with Phil Ferro, NSC and Executive Office of the President, on the 14th and a “Novel Corona Virus Touch Base” with Ferro on the 16th.

Jan. 20: China announced to the world that the virus has human-to-human transmission, an admission that they had a possible pandemic virus on their hands.

Jan. 21: Fauci’s NSC meeting gets a new name (“nCoV-PCC”) and the meeting now includes secure video teleconference.

Jan. 21: Fauci is interviewed by The Wall Street Journal reporter Betsy McKay on the listed topic “Coronavirus & HIV Papers.”

Is she asking Fauci about an upcoming scientific paper (published Jan. 31 by Indian scientists, but quickly withdrawn by the authors, amid intense criticism) that noted an “uncanny similarity” between the HIV virus and the spike protein in the COVID-19 virus?

Because bats don’t contract HIV, such a similarity would point to a lab creation for the novel virus.

An hour earlier, Fauci had a call with Peter Hotez about an “Anti-SARS vaccine candidate.” Hotez is an NIH-funded, Texas-based scientist and vaccine researcher, who had a $6 million NIH grant since 2012 studying a “SARS vaccine for biodefense.”

Hotez developed a non-mRNA vaccine model, that won recent approval for distribution in some foreign countries, such as India.

Jan. 22: The COVID-19 meetings with Fauci rise to a new level as Fauci’s calendar shows him in the White House Situation Room (“WHSR”), from ~1:30-3 this day for “nCoV PCC.”

Jan. 24: From ~1:30-2:30 p.m. Fauci has a “nCoV Small Group Discussion” at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), next to the White House, in “Anthony’s Office” Room 381. (nCoV stands for novel coronavirus and was the reference given to COVID-19 before it was officially named SARS-CoV-2.)

This is one of the few times no last name is listed on Fauci’s calendar. The meeting entry in our FOIA production is cut off but includes “***Please”; the entry also includes an attachment, which NIH currently has not released to OpenTheBooks.com.

“Anthony’s Office” Clue from Feb. 5: From 2:30-3:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, Fauci’s calendar shows an EEOB “Restricted Small Group” meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, who is listed as with the Executive Office of the President/NSC.

Anthony Ruggiero, according to his public LinkedIn page, was NSC “Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Counterproliferation and Biodefense” at the time of the meeting. Thus, it’s likely the Jan. 24 EEOB meeting in “Anthony’s Office” was with the same man as the Feb. 5 meeting: Anthony Ruggiero.

Jan. 27: From 2:30-3:30 p.m., Fauci has an “NSC Deputy Call” in the NIH SCIF. (SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” and is usually a room reserved for sensitive or classified briefings.) Trump’s NSC deputy at the time was Matthew Pottinger. The subject of the call is not noted on the calendar.

(Also on Jan. 27, Fauci met with the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel.)

Jan. 28: A Fauci/NSC COVID-19 meeting was previously disclosed Sharri Markson, who reported in her book “What Really Happened in Wuhan” that Pottinger called the Jan. 28 meeting with Fauci, HHS Secretary Azar and CDC Director Redfield just after Pottinger heard from Chinese dissident and human rights activist Wei Jingsheng about the virus breaking in China.

From Jan. 16 through Jan. 29, with few exceptions, Fauci’s weekday calendar shows a COVID-19 meeting, either in person or by phone via secure video teleconference with Phil Farro, who is with the Office of the President and the NSC.

Jan. 22: Fauci has an hour and a half blocked off for the COVID-19 meeting in the White House Situation Room.

Jan. 27: If he didn’t know before, emails released to the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that on this date, Fauci got definitive word from his staff that NIAID, his institute, funded a bat coronavirus grant to EcoHealth Alliance who collaborated with the WIV and Ralph Baric. If the virus was from the WIV, Fauci now knew he had funded the Chinese lab.

Jan. 31: Fauci is in the Oval Office, meeting, presumably, with the president.

Feb. 4: By this date, according to released emails, Fauci and the federally funded scientists he consults with, have decided that COVID-19 came from nature via a bat, through some intermediate species. Behind the scenes, they are drafting papers arguing that any position besides a natural origin is a conspiracy theory.

Yet, Fauci keeps meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, NSC’s biodefense and China expert (1/25 and 2/5). Are they thinking COVID-19 may have come from a lab leak?

Feb. 11: Fauci has a meeting with Ralph Baric, the University of North Carolina coronavirus scientist, arguably the nation’s foremost expert on bat coronaviruses. The meeting includes Emily Erbelding, the director of the NIAID Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Baric had a long working relationship with the Wuhan lab, and, it would later be revealed, applied (unsuccessfully) for a $14 million DARPA grant with the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance to insert a furin cleavage site into a chimeric bat virus and passage it through “humanized” mice to see if it had pandemic potential.

Some virologists have called that leaked document a recipe for the COVID-19 virus.

The Fauci/Baric meeting backs up against the NSC meeting with Phil Ferro. It’s not clear where Baric is during the meeting, if in-person or by phone. Was Baric on the NSC call or listening in?

(Previously at Forbes, I wrote about how Fauci continued to fund scientists like Baric and Fouchier by giving exemptions and narrowly defining scrutinized research — circumventing funding bans by Presidents Obama and Trump.)

Feb. 17: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a paper that Fauci apparently helped edit and was organized by NIH-funded Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, stated that the COVID-19 virus was from nature and called any suggestion otherwise a conspiracy.

Largely based on this paper, scientific discussion and social media posts suggesting a lab leak were censored as misinformation.

Other items of interest

Between Nov. 25, 2019, and Feb. 26, 2020, Fauci does three events with the American Society of Microbiology (ASM): a “Biothreats” discussion (11/25/2019); the ASM biothreats conference (1/29/2020); and meets with the ASM board (2/26/2020).

Jan. 7 and 9, 2020: Fauci did his first interviews on corona: 1. With CTV (Canadian TV) on the “pneumonia outbreak in China”; and 2. With Voice of America (VOA) on the “Wuhan pneumonia.” We couldn’t find the interviews published anywhere on the internet.

While the NIH keeps a public record of interviews Fauci conducted since Jan. 27, 2020, we identified 34 other interviews with him discussing the coronavirus from Jan. 7 to Jan. 26.

Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 24, Fauci meets or has calls with Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna (1/27); Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome Trust (British health non-profit focused on vaccines) (2/1); BioNTech executive and former NIH staffer Gary Nabel (2/6) and Johnson & Johnson chief scientist Paul Stoffels (2/24).

Feb. 7: Fauci receives training on personal protective equipment (PPE). Given his varying recommendations on PPE early in the pandemic, it would be interesting to know what training he received.

March 18: Fauci logged a meeting entitled “code red” with a follow-up meeting on March 20. No further details were listed.

March 26: Fauci did four YouTube hits of 15 minutes each. Fauci’s calendar titled these events: “FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Califf Request” — likely referencing Robert Califf. At the time, Califf was leading healthcare strategy at Alphabet (Google and YouTube parent company).

Robert Califf is the current Commissioner of Food and Drugs of the FDA and the former commissioner under Obama.

Summary

The official work calendar is an historic hour-by-hour documentation of Fauci in the months leading up to and during the publicly announced COVID-19 pandemic.

Even with this topline calendar transparency, NIH admits to holding an additional 60,000 pages of backup documentation. The federal court is allowing us to ask for specific items.

Therefore, if there is a specific document of oversight interest, please send our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com a message via the “Contact Us” portion of our website.

The historic release of Fauci’s work calendar leaves all of us with more questions than answers.

It’s incumbent upon Congress to exert its right to oversight.

Note: We reached out for comment to Fauci, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other top scientists mentioned on Fauci’s calendar. None gave us comments by our deadline.

Originally published on Adam Andrzejewski’s OpenTheBooks Substack page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-calendar-before-pandemic/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=84cfc378-168f-4950-b1ba-671f4546a6b0

What’s In Your Head?

Posted on by

How Wireless Headphones Could Lead to Neurological Disorders

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

wireless headphones apple airpods feature

Story at a glance:

  • Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.
  • The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance takes aim at nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
  • The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, communicate with one another by sending a magnetic field through your brain.
  • One scientist who signed the petition believes the use of earbuds is akin to a giant experiment and could increase your risk of neurological disorders.

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, bring a new level of function and convenience to those looking to listen to music, podcasts, audiobooks and more while on the go.

Since their introduction, more than 44 million AirPods have been sold, with another 55 million predicted to be sold in 2019 alone. Forecasts were that 80 million would be sold in 2020, but when the final tally came in, they actually hit over 100 million.

It’s an undeniably alluring bit of technology — one that was further made into a “necessity” of sorts when Apple removed the headphone jack from its iPhone 7 — but it’s one that may come at a steep price.

The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance, takes aim at both nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation.

Scientists warn of danger from EMFs

The petition, which was originally released in 2015 and updated in 2019, is an international appeal from scientists who work closely in the study of the health effects of nonionizing EMF.

For decades, the industry has claimed that nonionizing radiation is harmless and the only radiation worth worrying about is ionizing radiation.

On the contrary, the scientists state:

“Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.

“These include — but are not limited to — radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infrastructures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).”

Noting the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of EMF as a possible human carcinogen, they also stated numerous scientific publications show EMF affects organisms at levels “well below” most international and national guidelines.

Among the potential risks of exposure include:

  • Cancer.
  • Cellular stress.
  • Increase in harmful free radicals.
  • Genetic damages.
  • Structural and functional changes in the reproductive system.
  • Learning and memory deficits.
  • Neurological disorders.
  • Negative impacts on general well-being.

By failing to take action, the petition states, the World Health Organization is “failing to fulfill its role as the pre-eminent international public health agency,” adding that damage from EMF “goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

Why wireless earbuds could be particularly problematic

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley and one of the petition’s signers, explained that earbud technology is so new that research hasn’t yet been done to detail what effects it could have on the brain.

However, he stated in a news release, “I couldn’t imagine it’s all that great for you,” noting that AirPods “communicate with one another using a magnetic induction field, a variable magnetic field [one] sends through your brain to communicate with the other.”

Bluetooth technology like that used by AirPods is typically low intensity, but it’s the close proximity to your brain that could make earbuds particularly dangerous, especially since they tend to be used for longer periods.

Moskowitz said the technology could “open the blood-brain barrier, which evolved to keep large molecules out of the brain.”

He believes that with earbuds, exposure leading to neurological disorders and diseases may be more likely than cancer.

“From a precautionary standpoint, I would argue you shouldn’t experiment with your brain like this by keeping these kinds of wireless headphones on your head or in your ears,” Moskowitz said in a news release.

“You’re conducting a health experiment on yourself, and current regulations are completely oblivious to these kinds of exposures.”

EMFs may damage your cells by causing excessive free radicals

Martin Pall, Ph.D., professor emeritus at Washington State University, is another one of the scientists who signed the petition.

He discovered more than two dozen bodies of research asserting that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC. When there’s excess calcium in the cell, it increases levels of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide.

While NO has many beneficial health effects, massively excessive amounts of it react with superoxide, forming peroxynitrite, which is an extremely potent oxidant stressor.

Peroxynitrites, in turn, break down to form reactive free radicals, both reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species, including hydroxyl radicals, carbonate radicals and NO2 radicals — all three of which do damage. Peroxynitrites also do their own damage.

EMFs are not, therefore, causing damage by having a thermal influence or heating your tissues; they are not “cooking” your cells as some suggest.

Rather, EMF radiation activates the VGCCs in the outer cell membrane, triggering a chain reaction of devastating events that, ultimately:

  • Decimates your mitochondrial function, cell membranes and cellular proteins
  • Causes severe cellular damage
  • Results in DNA breaks
  • Dramatically accelerates your aging process
  • Puts you at higher risk for chronic disease

Like Moskowitz, Pall believes consequences of chronic EMF exposure to the brain can include neurological changes leading to anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s disease.

Further, it’s known that elevated VGCC activity in certain parts of the brain produces a variety of neuropsychiatric effects.

According to Pall:

“I reviewed a [large number] of studies on various kinds of EMF exposures, each of them showing neuropsychiatric effects. What you find is that these effects have been repeated many times in these epidemiological studies.

“It’s the same thing that everybody’s complaining about, ‘I’m tired all the time,’ ‘I can’t sleep,’ ‘I can’t concentrate,’ ‘I’m depressed,’ ‘I’m anxious all the time,’ ‘My memory doesn’t work well anymore.’ All the things everybody’s complaining about.

“We know all those things are caused by EMF exposures. There’s no doubt about that. Because we know their effects on the brain, we know that the VGCCs’ excessive activity can produce various neuropsychiatric problems.”

Download the interview transcript

Nine measures to protect human health from EMFs requested

In their petition to the U.N., the scientists state there are inadequate nonionizing EMF guidelines on an international level, and the agencies responsible have failed to create and impose sufficient guidelines and safety standards to protect public health and populations that may be especially vulnerable to EMF, such as children.

They’re calling for the United Nations Environmental Programme to fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to figure out ways to lower human exposure to RFR and ELF, noting that while industry should cooperate in this process, they should not be allowed to bias the findings.

They also made the following nine requests regarding EMF:

  1. Children and pregnant women be protected.
  2. Guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened.
  3. Manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology.
  4. Utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current.
  5. The public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm-reduction strategies.
  6. Medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity.
  7. Governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that are independent of industry, and mandate industry cooperation with researchers.
  8. Media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies.
  9. White-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

Protections needed before 5G technology becomes widespread

The scientists’ petition is a somber warning as 5G, or “5th Generation,” networks continue to roll out. Unlike the “4th Generation” (4G) technology currently in use, which relies on huge 90-foot cell towers with about a dozen antenna ports on each, the 5G system uses “small cell” facilities or bases, each with about 100 antenna ports each.

Expected to be 10 to 100 times faster than 4G technology and capable of supporting at least 100 billion devices, 5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is between 30GHz and 300GHz, according to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell.

MMWs have not been widely used before, but there are some concerning findings to date, including that sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.

In addition, there is a possibility the technology could worsen the problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria already plaguing the world, as they cause changes in E. coli and many other bacteria, depressing their growth and changing properties and activity.

This also raises concerns that the technology could lead to similar changes in human cells.

According to researchers in the journal Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology:

“MMW … or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new environmental factor, the level of which is increased as technology advances. It is of interest that bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high-frequency range …

“[T]he combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish [sic] role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Studies have even shown that MMWs may invoke stress protein changes in plants such as wheat shoots, while low levels of nonionizing radiation have been linked to disturbances and health problems in birds and bees.

Skip the earbuds — and other tips to lower your EMF exposure

It’s clear that when it comes to the use of earbuds, the use of the precautionary principle is warranted. Don’t become part of the experiment — skip earbuds and listen to your media content the “old-fashioned” way instead.

Apart from that, here are 18 more suggestions that will help reduce your EMF exposure and help mitigate damage from unavoidable exposures.

1. Identify major sources of EMF, such as your cellphone, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen.

Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use. Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cellphone or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cellphone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones, and developing immune systems and brains.

2. Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

3. If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

4. Avoid using wireless chargers for your cellphone, as they too will increase EMFs throughout your home. Wireless charging is also far less energy efficient than using a dongle attached to a power plug, as it draws continuous power (and emits EMFs) whether you’re using it or not.

According to Venkat Srinivasan, director of Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science, keeping your cellphone or tablet fully charged at all times will also reduce the life of the battery, which will necessitate the purchase of a brand-new phone.

As a lithium-ion battery charges and discharges, ions pass between a positive electrode and a negative electrode. The higher the battery is charged the faster the ions degrade, so it’s better to cycle between 45% and 55%.

5. Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

6. Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.

7. If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

8. Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

9. Refuse a smart meter on your home as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98% to 99%.

10. Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

11. Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally, remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

12. Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.

13. When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

14. Avoid using your cellphone and other electronic devices at least an hour (preferably several) before bed, as the blue light from the screen and EMFs both inhibit melatonin production.

15. Since we now know the effects of EMFs are reduced by calcium-channel blockers, make sure you’re getting enough magnesium. Most people are deficient in magnesium, which will worsen the impact of EMFs.

16. Pall has published a paper suggesting that raising your level of Nrf2 may help ameliorate EMF damage. One simple way to activate Nrf2 is to consume Nrf2-boosting food compounds.

Examples include sulforaphane-containing cruciferous vegetables, foods high in phenolic antioxidants, the long-chained omega-3 fats DHA and EPA, carotenoids (especially lycopene), sulfur compounds from allium vegetables, isothiocyanates from the cabbage group and terpenoid-rich foods.

Exercise, calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting) and activating the nitric oxide signaling pathway (one way of doing that is the Nitric Oxide Dump exercise) will also raise Nrf2.

17. Molecular hydrogen has been shown to target free radicals produced in response to radiation, such as peroxynitrites. Studies have shown molecular hydrogen can mitigate about 80% of this damage.

18. Certain spices may help prevent or repair damage from peroxynitrites. Spices rich in phenolics, specifically cinnamon, cloves, ginger root, rosemary and turmeric, have exhibited some protective effects against peroxynitrite-induced damage.

Originally published by Mercola.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wireless-headphones-apple-airpods-neurological-disorders-cola/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d00ea2b9-61c1-464c-a072-cc7b9e0cdd1a

What Is Going On In the Schools?

Posted on by

STOP Funding School Drag Shows

Posted Oct 10, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The mother in this video said she hopes her plea for help goes viral — here you go! I cannot believe that this needs to be said, but American public schools need to stop funding drag shows. The mother in the video above proved her point. She would not have been allowed in the school wearing the same outfit that a man dressed as a woman was permitted to wear while dancing in front of young children.

"Does this outfit make you turn your head? Does this outfit seem appropriate for anybody here to see? This is what the man dressed like in front of our kids. So if this makes your head spin — if this pisses you off in any way, shape, or form — it should. Because I’m embarrassed to stand here in the outfit that I am in today, but I have a point to prove — that this outfit should not be ever accepted in our schools anywhere."

Worse, the school failed even to do a background check on the exotic dancer. A simple search, as the mother pointed out, showed that the dancer had very questionable pictures online with blood smeared across their face. Kids are told to leave school for wearing shorts that are too short or even sandals. Why are primarily left-leaning American public school boards normalizing this alternative lifestyle and sexualizing children?

Hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars have gone toward placing crossdressers in schools, often without parental consent. There is no educational basis behind these crude shows. It is wrong. The goal is to normalize the woke agenda. Women no longer exist as there is now a full spectrum for gender, and children too young to tie their shoes properly can now make life-altering decisions on a whim without parental consent. This is not a conspiracy theory. The far left is increasingly bringing cross-dressers and drag queens into schools to teach (i.e., groom) very young children about sexuality. This has gone too far.

from:    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/politically-correct/stop-funding-school-drag-shows/

Rethinking Colonoscopy

Posted on by

Colonoscopies Fail to Reduce Colorectal-Related Deaths

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
October 20, 2022 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found the “benefits” of colonoscopies are not as great as they’re made out to be
  • After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group
  • There was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening compared to those who were not screened
  • Colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk similarly to other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing
  • Colonoscopies can cause serious adverse events, including death, bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp and perforation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 45 and 75 be screened for colorectal cancer every 10 years.1 As a result, about 15 million colonoscopies are performed every year in the U.S.2 The procedure, which involves extensive preparation and comes with considerable risks — include the risk of death — is touted as a key way to prevent colorectal cancer deaths.

However, as noted in a landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear.”3 The researchers set out to determine if the benefits of colonoscopies are as great as they’re made out to be — and found that they’re far from it.

Even study author Dr. Michael Bretthauer, a gastroenterologist with the University of Oslo in Norway, stated, “[W]e may have oversold the message for the last 10 years or so, and we have to wind it back a little.”

Study: Colonoscopies Don’t Reduce Cancer Deaths

The Northern-European Initiative on Colon Cancer (NordICC) study — a randomized trial involving 84,585 adults between 55 and 64 years of age — assigned participants in a 1-to-2 ratio to receive an invitation to undergo a colonoscopy or to receive no invitation or screening. None of the participants had gotten a colonoscopy previously.

After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group.4 However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening. The researchers intend to follow the participants for another five years to see if anything changes, but according to the study:5

“The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group … The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 … The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group.”

There were some limitations to the study, including a low uptake rate for those invited to get a colonoscopy. Only 42% of those invited to do the procedure actually did so. When the researchers analyzed the results based only on those who received colonoscopies, the procedure reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and reduced the risk of dying from colorectal cancer by 50%.6

Still, speaking with STAT News, Dr. Samir Gupta, a gastroenterologist who was not involved with the study, noted, “This is a landmark study. It’s the first randomized trial showing outcomes of exposing people to colonoscopy screening versus no colonoscopy. And I think we were all expecting colonoscopy to do better. Maybe colonoscopy isn’t as good as we always thought it is.”7

Colonoscopy ‘Not the Magic Bullet We Thought It Was’

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2022 there will be 106,180 new cases of colon cancer diagnosed and 44,850 new cases of rectal cancer.8 The two types are grouped together — collectively known as colorectal cancer — since they have many of the same characteristics.

The rate of people being diagnosed with either colon or rectal cancers has gone down since the 1980s. The American Cancer Society (ACS) attributes this to changes in lifestyle as well as more people getting screened.9 The death rate from colorectal cancer has also decreased over several decades — a decline that ACS again attributes to screening, as well as colorectal cancer treatments.

“One reason is that colorectal polyps are now being found more often by screening and removed before they can develop into cancers,” ACS notes.10 However, the featured study makes it clear that colonoscopies’ benefits may have been overstated. Bretthauer told STAT News:11

“It’s not the magic bullet we thought it was. I think we may have oversold colonoscopy. If you look at what the gastroenterology societies say, and I’m one myself so these are my people, we talked about 70, 80, or even 90% reduction in colon cancer if everyone went for colonoscopy. That’s not what these data show.”

Bretthauer suggested colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk by 20% or 30%, which is close to reductions offered by other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing. Bretthauer told STAT News:12

“That raises an important point for policymakers … Colonoscopy is more expensive, more time-intensive, and more unpleasant in preparation for patients. Many European countries balked at putting public health dollars towards a large, expensive program, he said, when the fecal testing was cheaper, easier, and had greater uptake in certain studies.

‘Now, the European approach makes much more sense. It’s not only cheaper, but maybe equally effective.’”

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

In 2019, the BMJ published clinical practice guidelines13 for colorectal cancer screening using a stool test — known as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) — a single colonoscopy or a single sigmoidoscopy. A sigmoidoscopy is similar to a colonoscopy but less extensive and less invasive. During a colonoscopy, your entire large intestine is examined, while a sigmoidoscopy only checks the lower part of your colon.

The practice guidelines recommend physicians use a tool to estimate an individual’s potential risk for developing colorectal cancer in the next 15 years. The team recommends that only those who have a risk of 3% or greater should undergo screening tests, choosing from one of four screening options.

This included a FIT done every year or a FIT done every two years depending on risk factors. Patients may also choose a single sigmoidoscopy or, the weakest recommendation from the team, a single colonoscopy.

However, the team determined that the risks associated with colorectal cancer screening outweighed the benefits in many cases. For instance, the risk of death from a colonoscopy from one source was 1 in 16,318 procedures evaluated.14

In the same analysis, the researchers also found 82 suffered serious complications. Another analysis found a death rate of 3 per 100,000 colonoscopies, along with serious adverse events in 44 per 10,000, “with a number needed to harm of 225.”15

Colonoscopies Carry Significant Risks

For any medical procedure, the benefits must outweigh the risks to the patient. But depending on your risk factors, it’s possible that colonoscopy could cause more harm than good. Aside from the risk of death, additional concerning risks include perforation and bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found the risk of perforation after colonoscopy was about 6 per 10,000 while the risk of bleeding was about 24 per 10,000 procedures.16 However, the risks can vary significantly depending on where the procedure is performed.

The risk of perforation at Baylor University Medical Center, according to one study, was 0.57 per 1,000 procedures or 1 in 1750 colonoscopies.17 In a report published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, it’s explained:18

“The frequency of complications is dependent on the skill of physicians doing the procedure, on safeguards that are in place within the laboratory where the procedure is carried out, and whether colonoscopy is done for screening or for diagnostic or therapeutic indications.

Major complications include adverse sedation or anesthetic events including aspiration pneumonia, post-polypectomy bleeding, diverticulitis, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, and colonic perforation.”

Improper Equipment Sterilization Is Dangerous

Download Interview Transcript | Video Link

Another risk factor that varies from clinic to clinic has to do with how well the equipment is sterilized. David Lewis, Ph.D., and I discuss this in the short video above. One issue is the inability to thoroughly clean the inside of the scope.

One common issue is that, during the examination, the physician may be unable to see through the scope and is unsuccessful in the attempt to flush it using the air/water channel as it is clogged with human tissue from a past exam. The scope must be retracted and another one used. Since endoscopes have sensitive equipment attached, they cannot be heat sterilized.

Unfortunately, manufacturers have not been made to produce a scope with the ability to be heat sterilized. As Lewis points out in the video, “We can put a Rover on Mars, surely we can build a flexible endoscope that we can put in an autoclave.” These expensive tools are not disposable but require sterilization between each patient.

Lewis reports that up to 80% of hospitals are sterilizing the flexible endoscopes with glutaraldehyde (Cidex). On testing, he finds this has complicated the process as it does not dissolve tissue in the endoscope but rather preserves it.

When sharp biopsy tools are run through the tube, patient material from past testing is scraped off and potentially carried into your body. This is why it’s important to find a clinic or hospital that uses peracetic acid to thoroughly sterilize the equipment by dissolving proteins found in the flexible endoscopes. Before scheduling any endoscopic examination call to ask how the equipment is sterilized between patients.

Most Colorectal Cancer Cases Are Related to Diet

Aside from skin cancer, colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the U.S., as well as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths.19 It’s wise to take steps to reduce your risk, and lifestyle changes can be quite effective. In fact, lifestyle factors, including dietary choices, play a major role in the occurrence and progression of colorectal cancer,20 with only an estimated 20% of cases caused by genetic factors with the remainder due to environmental factors.

Up to 70% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are believed to be related to diet, leading researchers with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine to state:21

“As such, bioactive food components offer exciting possibilities for chemoprevention due to their potential to target many factors associated with the development and progression of CRC. Furthermore, the ability of bioactive food components to elicit tumoricidal effects without displaying the high toxicity exhibited by standard pharmacological interventions may translate to improved quality of life and survival in patients with cancer.”

For instance, emodin, which is found in Chinese rhubarb as well as in aloe vera, giant knotweed, the herb Polygonum multiflorum (tuber fleeceflower) and Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed), may help prevent colorectal disease due to impressive therapeutic effects, including anti-inflammatory and antitumor properties.22

Fermented foods are also gaining recognition as an important dietary anticancer adjunct. The beneficial bacteria found in fermented foods have been shown particularly effective for suppressing colon cancer. For example, butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid created when microbes ferment dietary fiber in your gut, has been shown to induce programmed cell death of colon cancer cells.23

Other strategies to help prevent colorectal cancer include eating more fiber, optimizing vitamin D, avoiding processed meat, maintaining a normal weight and controlling belly fat. In a larger sense, researchers have demonstrated that cancer is likely a metabolic disease controlled in part by dysfunctional mitochondria.

You can optimize your mitochondrial health through cyclical nutritional ketosis, calorie restriction, meal timing, exercise and normalizing your iron level. All of these lifestyle factors play a role in keeping your body healthy and disease-free.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/20/colonoscopies-carry-significant-risks.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20221020&cid=DM1269224&bid=1625169157

So… You Always Wanted to Be On Camera?

Posted on by

‘Watched the whole time’: China’s surveillance state grows under Xi

Jing Xuan TENG

When Chen picked up his phone to vent his anger at getting a parking ticket, his message on WeChat was a drop in the ocean of daily posts on China’s biggest social network.

But soon after his tirade against “simple-minded” traffic cops in June, he found himself in the tentacles of the communist country’s omniscient surveillance apparatus.

Chen quickly deleted the post, but officers tracked him down and detained him within hours, accusing him of “insulting the police”.

He was locked up for five days for “inappropriate speech”.

His case — one of the thousands logged by a dissident and reported by local media — laid bare the pervasive monitoring that characterises life in China today.

Its leaders have long taken an authoritarian approach to social control.

But since President Xi Jinping took power in 2012, he has reined in the relatively freewheeling social currents of the turn of the century, using a combination of technology, law and ideology to squeeze dissent and preempt threats to his rule.

Ostensibly targeting criminals and aimed at protecting order, social controls have been turned against dissidents, activists and religious minorities, as well as ordinary people — such as Chen — judged to have crossed the line.

– Eyes in the sky –

The average Chinese citizen today spends nearly every waking moment under the watchful eye of the state.

Research firm Comparitech estimates the average Chinese city has more than 370 security cameras per 1,000 people — making them the most surveilled places in the world — compared with London’s 13 or Singapore’s 18 per 1,000.

The nationwide “Skynet” urban surveillance project has ballooned, with cameras capable of recognising faces, clothing and age.

“We are being watched the whole time,” an environmental activist who declined to be named told AFP.

The Communist Party’s grip is most stark in the far-western region of Xinjiang, where facial recognition and DNA collection have been deployed on mainly Muslim minorities in the name of counter-terrorism.

The Covid-19 pandemic has turbo-charged China’s monitoring framework, with citizens now tracked on their smartphones via an app that determines where they can go based on green, yellow or red codes.

Regulations rolled out since 2012 closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase SIM cards without giving their names, and mandated government identification for tickets on virtually all forms of transport.

– Online offences –

There is no respite online, where even shopping apps require registration with a phone number tied to an identification document.

Wang, a Chinese dissident speaking to AFP under a pseudonym due to safety concerns, recalled a time before Xi when censors were not all-knowing and “telling jokes about (former Chinese president) Jiang Zemin on the internet was actually very popular”.

But the Chinese internet — behind the “Great Firewall” since the early 2000s — has become an increasingly policed space.

Wang runs a Twitter account tracking thousands of cases of people detained, fined or punished for speech acts since 2013.

Thanks to the real-name verification system as well as cooperation between police and social media platforms, people have been punished for a vast array of online offences.

Platforms such as Weibo employ thousands of content moderators and automatically block politically sensitive keywords, such as tennis star Peng Shuai’s name after she accused a senior politician of sexual assault last year.

Cyberspace authorities are proposing new rules that would force platforms to monitor comments sections on posts — one of the last avenues for people to voice their grievances online.

– Ideological policing –

Many of the surveillance technologies in use have been embraced in other countries.

“The real difference in China is the lack of independent media and civil society able to provide meaningful criticism of innovations or to point out their many flaws,” Jeremy Daum, from the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School, told AFP.

Xi has reshaped Chinese society, with the Communist Party stipulating what citizens “ought to know, to feel, to think, and say, and do”, Vivienne Shue, professor emeritus of contemporary China studies at Oxford University, told AFP.

Youngsters are kept away from foreign influences, with authorities banning international books and forbidding tutoring companies from hiring overseas teachers.

Ideological policing has even extended to fashion, with television stations censoring tattoos and earrings on men.

“What disturbs me more is not the censorship itself, but how it shaped the ideology of people,” said Wang, the Twitter account owner.

“With dissenting information being eliminated, every website becomes a cult, where the government and leaders have to be worshipped.”

tjx/je/kma/axn/qan

from:    https://news.yahoo.com/watched-whole-time-chinas-surveillance-030215860.html

Declining Birth Rates – Bioweapons – Jabbing

Posted on by

Regression of Humanity, How Big Pharma Is Risking Everything

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
October 21, 2022 
covid vaccines bioweapons

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Media are reporting that pregnancy complications have spiked during the COVID pandemic, but claim the cause is unknown
  • Most blame the virus itself. But even then, they fail to address the fact that it’s the spike protein that is the most likely culprit. The obvious reason for that is because the spike protein is also what your body produces in response to the COVID shots
  • Around the world, women are reporting abnormal menses and vaginal hemorrhaging, both post-COVID and after exposure to the jab or someone who got the shot. Birth rates have significantly dropped, and we’re seeing upticks in preeclampsia, miscarriages, premature births and early puberty, as well as maternal and infant deaths
  • Despite the clear risks of vaccinating during pregnancy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine for newborns that is given to mothers in the third trimester. This is the first vaccine aimed at infants that is to be preemptively given to the mother during pregnancy
  • While U.S. media celebrated the FDA’s authorization of COVID shots for infants under the age of 5 last summer, European countries had long since stopped caring about the pandemic, and the head of public health in Denmark admitted it was a mistake to vaccinate children between the ages of 5 and 11

As soon as it was announced that COVID-19 would be combated with novel mRNA gene transfer technology, a number of scientists spoke out against it with dire warnings about potential health ramifications, including the theory that fertility might be adversely impacted.

In the two years since the rollout of these COVID shots, our worst fears have come true. Still, mainstream media feign surprise. Case in point: The Washington Post recently reported that “Pregnancy complications spiked during the pandemic” and “no one knows exactly why.”1

Aside from COVID-19 itself, the COVID shots are the only thing that has impacted a vast majority of the population worldwide during this timeframe, and everywhere the same effects are reported. To claim “no one knows why” is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room as its tail is swatting you in the face and its trumpet sound threatens to shatter your eardrums.

Both Virus and Shots May Have Similar Impacts on Pregnancy

The Washington Post seems to go out of its way to not implicate the COVID shots, laying all the blame on the virus itself. But even then, they fail to address the fact that it’s the spike protein that is the most likely culprit. The obvious reason for that is because the spike protein is also what your body produces in response to the COVID shots.

However, when you read things like, “last fall and winter, Amy Heerema McKenney, a Cleveland Clinic pathologist … began receiving eerily similar reports of stillbirths,” you realize that “last fall and winter” refers to the winter of 2021, not 2020 or 2019.mR

In other words, we’re talking about a time when most people had received one or more mRNA shots, while the virus itself had mutated into milder forms that were rarely associated with severe blood clotting issues and other anomalies.

That said, it’s by no means impossible that SARS-CoV-2, even in its milder expressions, might have an adverse impact on pregnancy. After all, we’re likely talking about a genetically engineered bioweapon.

The respiratory effects may have mutated to be less severe while other organs may still be more adversely impacted by the spike protein. We also have the “shedding” issue to contend with, so just because a woman is unjabbed doesn’t mean she’s not affected by COVID jab spike protein.

Unique Damage to the Placenta

The Washington Post goes on to describe what McKenney was finding in the winter of 2021:

“Almost as soon as she began looking into [the stillbirths], Heerema McKenney recalled, she became ‘pretty panicked.’ A normal placenta is spongy and dark, reflecting the nourishing blood flowing through it. The ones she was looking at in her lab from the mothers who lost their babies were like nothing she had ever seen before: firm, scarred and more of a shade of tan.

‘The degree of devastation was unique,’ she said. Flipping through case files, she noted that most of the women were in their second trimester, unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated, and infected with the coronavirus within a two-week window before their pregnancies ending.

Heerema McKenney herself saw fewer than 20 potentially coronavirus-related stillbirths over about six months. But her findings matched up with cases colleagues were seeing in other parts of the world.

And they also echoed those in a paper from Ireland that looked at seven cases — six stillbirths and one second-trimester fetal death in pregnant people infected with the coronavirus — resulting from what the authors called ‘a readily recognizable pattern of placental injury.’ She said, ‘That’s when we realized we were all looking at the same thing.’”

While McKenney claims most were either unjabbed or partially jabbed, other evidence clearly implicate the COVID shots. For example, in November 2021, Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), delivered an astonishing 13 stillborn babies in a 24-hour period, and all of the mothers had received the COVID jab.2 In a typical month, there may be one stillborn baby at the hospital, making 13 stillbirths in 24 hours highly unusual.

Types of Pregnancy Complications on the Rise

That something is terribly wrong is clear from global statistics. Around the world, women are reporting abnormal menses3 and vaginal hemorrhaging,4 both post-COVID5 and after exposure to the jab6,7 or someone who got the shot. Birth rates have significantly dropped, and we’re seeing significant upticks in preeclampsia,8 miscarriages,9,10,11,12,13 premature births,14 early puberty, as well as maternal and infant deaths.

According to a research letter15 in JAMA published in late June 2022, maternal deaths in the U.S. rose from 18.8 per 100,000 live births prepandemic, to 25.1 per 100,000 live births during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2020, a relative increase of 33.3%.

That increase can be attributed to COVID-19, since no COVID shots were available in 2020. We don’t yet have the statistics for 2021 and 2022, but based on obituaries and social media posts, it seems many new mothers are now dying “suddenly” and for no apparent reason. Time will tell, but I doubt the trend has gotten any better after the rollout of the COVID shots for pregnant women.

More Vaccines for Pregnant Women

Despite the clear risks of vaccinating during pregnancy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved a whooping cough vaccine for newborns that is given to mothers in the third trimester. This is the first vaccine aimed at infants that is to be preemptively given to the mother during pregnancy. According to Pharmacy Times:16

“Since children aged 2 months of age or younger are not eligible to receive an actual vaccine themselves, administering the Tdap vaccine to the mother can boost the infant’s immune system by boosting antibodies in the mother, who then transfers the antibodies to the developing fetus …

According to the CDC, although only 4.2% of US cases occur in this age group, 31% of infants who contract the disease who are also younger than 6 months go to the hospital due to the illness.”

Swedish Journalist Critiques American Reporting

In an early October 2022 commentary in the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan,17,18 journalist and author Johan Anderberg expressed being perplexed by The New York Times’ jubilant announcement this past summer that toddlers could finally get the COVID shot.

“For a reader on the other side of the Atlantic, the reporting on infant vaccination appeared somewhat puzzling,” Anderberg writes. “In most European countries, citizens had long since stopped caring about the pandemic, and in Denmark, the head of public health, Soren Brostrom, had even said that it was a mistake to vaccinate children between the ages of 5 and 11.

But for the New York Times — and its subscribers — this was a big event. When the magazine asked its readers to send in stories about what it was like to live with unvaccinated toddlers, they received 1,600 responses. Several of them said their children had never been allowed to play with friends or meet their relatives indoors.

At the end of the summer, the first numbers came out on how many Americans had actually vaccinated their toddlers in the first month. It turned out fewer than 5% of American children under the age of 5 had received their first injection.

Not so long ago, those kinds of numbers would have been thought provoking for a newspaper like the New York Times: Did we have an incorrect picture of the mood in the country? … Was there a perspective on the issue that we missed? But it no longer works that way.”

He goes on to describe how The New York Times has changed from “all the news that’s fit to print” into a publication that cherry picks its stories based on political bias and a preconceived agenda, and rarely ever presents more than one viewpoint anymore.

Had they been more journalistically inclined and less biased, they would not have gotten the COVID-jab-for-infants’ story so wrong. Many Americans also “received a blatantly incorrect picture of the risks with the new coronavirus through The New York Times reporting,” Anderberg writes.

The New York Times’ fallacies spread as far and as high as the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor publicly overstated the number of serious COVID infections among children by 2,000%. That enormous flub was a direct result of depending on mainstream sources with an agenda to spread fear rather than truth.

Vaccines and Bioweapons Are One Industry

The fact that we have no real independent press anymore has become painfully clear over the past three years. What we have are corporate-government propaganda outlets and censored alternative media. There’s not much in between.

Certainly, you rarely ever find both sides of an issue covered by the same media outlet anymore. Media has become incredibly polarized and, with it, the population at large. As noted by Anderberg, the mainstream press has played a key role in this polarization, as it has abandoned rules of journalism such as unbiased research and reportage and presenting more than one side of every story.

The reason for this appears to be because media are owned and controlled by those who benefit from the pandemic. In short, media’s refusal to state the obvious is because the obvious doesn’t fit the narrative that we must surrender our freedom for biosecurity’s sake.

But the promise of biosecurity is itself a lie. Not only is SARS-CoV-2 a bioweapon, but the COVID shot is too. Once people realize that the vaccine industry and the bioweapons industry have become one and the same, the big picture will become clearer.

COVID Shots Are Weapons of Mass Destruction

These shots may have many purposes, but none of them is to protect your health. They may be part of a depopulation agenda. They may be part of an ongoing experiment to perfect some aspect of the transhumanist goal to merge man with AI and synthetic biology. They may have a social engineering purpose. They’re undoubtedly part of the global takeover effort by the New World Order/Great Reset cabal.

But they’re not part of a benevolent public health program. If they were, the corporate-government alliance would not have spent billions to first entice and bribe people into taking the shots (remember those million-dollar lotteries?), and later shame, bully and threaten to ostracize from society or outright kill the unvaccinated.

If COVID-19 were a naturally-occurring virus, then scientists, media, Big Tech and bioweapons chief Dr. Anthony Fauci would not have gone out of their way to suppress and censor debate about its origin.

Similarly, if the COVID shots were a novel but beneficial intervention for an unprecedented health crisis, the input and feedback of scientists around the world would have been welcomed rather than censored. (Ditto for doctors’ feedback on successful treatments. If saving lives was the goal, all suggestions would have been welcomed.)

The reason no one, regardless of qualifications, is permitted to speak about the dangers of these shots is because they’re supposed to be dangerous. They’re bioweapons. The mindset of those pushing for a post-human transhumanist world may be complex (if not incomprehensible), but the strategy to achieve their desired ends is that simple.

Mankind Is Being Regressed Into Oblivion

Mankind is being decimated by not just one but several different bioweapons — the original virus and a steady stream of ever-changing gene influencing shots. In the process, survivors of the next generation, children born and growing up in these times, are being robbed of intelligence, health and life span.

Mankind is quite literally being regressed. The Big Pharma-biotech-bioweapons complex are risking everything, the very future of mankind itself, in this effort to “reset” the world and shape it to their own liking and benefit.

Many worry about a nuclear World War III between nations but, in reality, World War III has already begun. The transhumanist-centered pharma-bioweapons industry has spent the last two years decimating its enemy — mankind — using the most sophisticated biowarfare and social engineering tools the world has ever seen.

Learn to Say No

The primary defense we have against these attacks is the word “no.” If enough of us simply reject whatever they roll out next and work on building our own parallel systems, we can preserve life and liberty for coming generations.

The globalist cabal is using bioweapons, but we can refuse to take them. They’re using sophisticated social engineering, but we can educate ourselves on their tactics, thereby insulating ourselves against their programming. They’re tearing down the infrastructure we depend on for life, including the financial system, the health care system and the food system, but we can replace them with ethical and pro-human alternatives.

We don’t have to agree to their “solutions,” which are coming, and will include living in smart cities with digital identities, a social credit score, surveillance down to your biological processes and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), all of which will render you into a 21st century slave with a digital choke chain around your neck. Avoiding that fate won’t be easy. It certainly won’t be convenient. But it’ll be worth it.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/21/covid-vaccines-bioweapons.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20221021&cid=DM1269897&bid=1626029024Dr. Mercola

pregrn

Who Are the Real Aggressors?

Posted on by

Irish MEPs Tell Truth to Power. The USG, EU, and Israel Are the Real Terrorists.

By Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, October 21, 2022
Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics 20 October 2022
***

This sort of criticism of US-EU-Israeli foreign policy would never be allowed in the USG Congress. Quite frankly, I am surprised the European Parliament didn’t cut the mic on MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly.

 

Yes, indeed. The USG, EU, and Israel are the real terrorists. The historical record is clear, although largely ignored, especially here in America where it is now impossible to elect people speaking truth to power like Daly and Wallace.

In America, it is becoming increasingly dangerous to express opposition to the insanity of the national security state and its partners in the EU and Israel.

Journalists in America are now disappeared, the same as they are in other authoritarian nations. If you doubt this, non-Google search “James Gordon Meeks.”

Mr. Meeks, a national security reporter for ABC, has not been seen since the FBI raided his apartment in April.

Julian Assange is wasting away in Belmarsh prison for the crime of telling the world about the horrible deeds of the USG in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is increasingly perilous to comment in public or social media on the manifest crimes of the USG and its junior partners in torture and mass murder.

It’s possible Mr. Meek, following the FBI raid, supposedly in search of classified documents on his laptop, is hiding out somewhere, keeping a low profile, afraid of the government and the FBI (the USG’s political police).

Then again, the case of Assange is demonstrative.

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kurt Nimmo 

The original source of this article is Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics
Copyright © Kurt Nimmo, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics, 2022
from:  https://www.globalresearch.ca/irish-meps-tell-truth-power-usg-eu-israel-real-terrorists/5796919