Science

by

Leaked Document Reveals ‘Shocking’ Terms of Pfizer’s International Vaccine Agreements | Children’s Health Defense & Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance:

  • A leaked document broken down by Twitter user Ehden reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements.
  • Countries that purchase Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot must acknowledge that “Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the product” are “subject to significant risks and uncertainties.”
  • In the event that a drug or other treatment comes out that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19, the agreement stands, and the country must follow through with their vaccine order.
  • While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.50 per dose — Albania, the leaked contract revealed, paid $12 per dose.
  • The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: both their efficacy and risks are unknown.
  • Purchasers must also “indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer … from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine.”

Vaccine makers have nothing to lose by marketing their experimental COVID-19shots, even if they cause serious injury and death, as they enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from COVID-19 vaccines or any other pandemic vaccine under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in the U.S. in 2005.

The full extent of their COVID-19 vaccine indemnification agreements with countries, however, is a closely guarded secret, one that has remained highly confidential — until now. A leaked document broken down by Twitter user Ehden reveals the shocking terms of Pfizer’s international COVID-19 vaccine agreements.

“These agreements are confidential, but luckily one country did not protect the contract document well enough, so I managed to get a hold of a copy,” he wrote. “As you are about to see, there is a good reason why Pfizer was fighting to hide the details of these contracts.”

An ironclad agreement, all on Pfizer’s terms

The alleged indemnification agreement, reportedly between Pfizer and Albania, was originally posted in snippets on Twitter, but Twitter now has them marked as “unavailable.” Copies of the tweets are available on Treadreader, however.

The Albania agreement appears very similar to another contract, published online, between Pfizer and the Dominican Republic. It covers not only COVID-19 vaccines, but any product that enhances the use or effects of such vaccines.

Countries that purchase Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot must acknowledge that “Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the Product” are “subject to significant risks and uncertainties.”

And in the event that a drug or other treatment comes out that can prevent, treat or cure COVID-19, the agreement stands, and the country must follow through with their order. Ivermectin, for instance, is not only safe, inexpensive and widely available but has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%. Yet, it continues to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.

“If you were wondering why #Ivermectin was suppressed,” Ehden wrote, “well, it is because the agreement that countries had with Pfizer does not allow them to escape their contract, which states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID19 the contract cannot be voided.”

Even if Pfizer fails to deliver vaccine doses within their estimated delivery period, the purchaser may not cancel the order. Further, Pfizer can make adjustments to the number of contracted doses and their delivery schedule, “based on principles to be determined by Pfizer,” and the country buying the vaccines must “agree to any revision.”

It doesn’t matter if the vaccines are delivered severely late, even at a point when they’re no longer needed, as it’s made clear that “Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties.” As you might suspect, the contract also forbids returns “under any circumstances.”Whistleblowers Welcome! Help Humanity – Securely Share COVID-19 Corruption

The big secret: Pfizer charged U.S. More Than Other Countries

While COVID-19 vaccines are “free” to receive in the U.S., they’re being paid for by taxpayer dollars at a rate of $19.5011 per dose. Albania, the leaked contract revealed, paid $12 per dose, while the EU paid $14.70 per shot. While charging different prices to different purchases is common in the drug industry, it’s often frowned upon.

In the case of the price disparity between the U.S. and the EU, Pfizer is said to have given a price break to the EU because it financially supported the development of their COVID-19 vaccine. Still, Ehden noted, “U.S. taxpayers got screwed by Pfizer, probably also Israel.” Also, Pfizer makes a point to note that countries have no right to withhold payment to the company for any reason.

Apparently, this includes in the case of receiving damaged goods. Purchasers of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines are not entitled to reject them “based on service complaints,” unless they do not conform to specifications or the FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. And, Ehden adds, “This agreement is above any local law of the state.”

While the purchaser has virtually no way of canceling the contract, Pfizer can terminate the agreement in the event of a “material breach” of any term in their contract.

Safety and efficacy ‘not currently known’

The purchaser of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine must also acknowledge two facts that have largely been brushed under the rug: Both their efficacy and risks are unknown. According to section 5.5 of the contract:

“Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement.

“Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”

Indemnification by the purchaser is also explicitly required by the contract, which states, under section 8.1:

“Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research …

“from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation … arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine …”

Meanwhile, the purchaser must also keep the terms of the contract confidentialfor a period of 10 years.

Purchasers must protect and defend Pfizer

Not only does Pfizer have total indemnification, but there’s also a section in the contract titled, “Assumption of Defense by Purchaser,” which states that in the event Pfizer suffers losses for which it is seeking indemnification, the purchaser “shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of the Indemnitee with counsel acceptable to Indemnitee(s), whether or not the Indemnified Claim is rightfully brought.” Ehden notes:

“Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything: ‘Costs and expenses, including … fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser.’”

Buried in the March 17, 2020, Federal Register — the daily journal of the U.S. government — in a document titled, “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19,” is language that establishes a new COVID-19 vaccine court — similar to the federal vaccine court that already exists.

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured by a COVID vaccine (or a select group of other vaccines designated under the act), you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,25 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.

The CICP also has a one-year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly, which is also difficult since it’s unknown if long-term effects could occur more than a year later.

Pfizer accused of abuse of power

As is apparent in Pfizer’s confidential contract with Albania, the drug giant wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it. Pfizer has also demanded that countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation.

New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION) reported in February 2021 that Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” The demands includedthat Brazil:

  1. “Waives sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer.”
  2. Not apply its domestic laws to the company.
  3. Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays.
  4. Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects.

STAT News also referred to concerns by legal experts, who also suggested Pfizer’s demands were an abuse of power. Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, told STAT:

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Signs of COVID vaccine failure, adverse effects rise

Pfizer continues to sign lucrative secret vaccine deals across the globe. In June 2021, they signed one of their biggest contracts to date — with the Philippine government for 40 million doses.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 “breakthrough cases,” which used to be called vaccine failures, are on the rise. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of July 19, 5,914 people who had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 were hospitalized or died from COVID-19.

In the U.K., as of July 15, 87.5% of the adult population had received one dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 67.1% had received two. Yet, symptomatic cases among partially and fully vaccinated are on the rise, with an average of 15,537 new infections a day being detected, a 40% increase from the week before.

In a July 19 report from the CDC, the agency also reported that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine — more than doubling from the 6,079 reports of death from the week before.

Soon after the report, however, they reverted the number to the 6,079 from the week before, indicating by default that no deaths from the vaccine had occurred that week,34 raising serious questions about transparency and vaccine safety.

Many other adverse events are also appearing, ranging from risks from the biologically active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the vaccine to blood clots, reproductive toxicity and myocarditis (heart inflammation). As you can see in the confidential indemnification agreements, however, even if the vaccine turns out to be a dismal failure — and a risk to short- and long-term health — countries have no recourse, nor does anyone who received the experimental shots.

One question that we should all be asking is this: If the COVID-19 vaccines are, in fact, as safe and effective as the manufacturers claim, why do they require this level of indemnification?

Source: Children’s Health Defense & Mercola

by

Masks Off? or Masks On? A History of the CDC’S Consistently Inconsistent Advice on Face Coverings | Waking Times & Open Source Truth

By Tom Cox

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stayed true to form by deciding that its current mask guidance – not to be confused with its previous and repeatedly revised guidance – needs to be reversed. Again.

It’s a shame so many Americans do not appreciate the new rules concerning the use of face coverings among the fully vaccinated. After all, asking jabbed citizens to mask up after telling them they don’t need to mask up, after suggesting to them that wearing two masks almost all the time would be even better, must be the best possible and most consistent public health policy under the current circumstances.

Enough, already: The historical record is self-explanatory. The CDC, together with America’s trusted public-health bureaucrats, have always pursued evidence-based policymaking and have never once bowed to mass panic. The below timeline should finally put to rest all the feeble-minded moaning leveled against US health authorities during these trying times.

November 2004

The CDC publishes guidance in response to “questions about the role of masks for controlling influenza when suboptimal immunization of the public could increase the frequency of influenza infection” – a surprisingly topical issue, almost 20 years later.

Masks are not usually recommended in non-health-care settings, the advisory states. The CDC explains that, even though flu symptoms can take up to a week to appear, there is no apparent benefit from asymptomatic individuals wearing face coverings.

“No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza.”

April 2009

The CDC issues recommendations for the use of face masks and respirators in areas where H1N1 ‘swine flu’ has been detected.

“Information on the effectiveness of facemasks and respirators for the control of influenza in community settings is extremely limited,” the agency explains. Face coverings should only be used when caring for sick individuals or in other specific circumstances, the CDC says, adding that “relying” on masks for protection in crowded settings is ill-advised. The health authority maintains this position throughout the duration of the pandemic.

February 5, 2020

As Covid-19 begins to spread across the globe, Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to the president, receives an email from a former senior US government official asking if she should wear a mask while traveling, as a precautionary measure.

He advises against it: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out [the] virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

February 28, 2020

February 29, 2020

Americans begin to panic-buy masks, greatly irritating the nation’s top health authorities.

“Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,” US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams tweets. He adds that ordinary Americans should focus more on hand-washing and other sanitary measures, and let healthcare workers wear the masks – advice in perfect harmony with years-old CDC guidance. The tweet is later deleted, but the internet never forgets.

March 8, 2020

A month after the Trump administration declares a public health emergency due to the coronavirus outbreak, Fauci says in an interview with 60 Minutes: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.”

In keeping with longstanding CDC guidance, he stresses that masks should be reserved for healthcare providers and those who are ill.

March 29, 2020

(In case you’re wondering, the name of the Twitter account has changed because there’s a new Surgeon General.)

March 31, 2020

In an article dunking on Donald Trump’s suggestion that Americans could wear scarves to shield their faces from Covid-19, NBC facetiously reports: “While the science behind whether masks can prevent a person from catching the coronavirus hasn’t changed (a mask does not help a healthy person avoid infection), public guidance may be shifting.” In the same article, the outlet stresses that there is “no scientific evidence that wearing face coverings would have a measurable impact on flattening the coronavirus curve.”

On the same day, CNN reports that Fauci supports “broadening” mask use among the general public, provided there are enough face coverings for healthcare workers.

“Because if, in fact, a person who may or may not be infected wants to prevent infecting somebody else, the best way to do that is with a mask. Perhaps that’s the way to go,” Fauci declares, in a bold U-turn from his previous position on the matter.

April 2, 2020

The CDC’s FAQ page about Covid-19 reads: “CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including Covid-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have Covid-19 and are showing symptoms.”

April 3, 2020

Americans are suddenly informed that facemasks should actually be worn by just about everyone.As cities across the United States begin to lock down, the CDC advises Americans to voluntarily don cloth face masks, purportedly in a data-backed bid to help halt the virus. President Trump explains that the new guidance is prompted by concerns that seemingly healthy people are transmitting the disease: “You don’t seem to have symptoms and it still gets transferred.”

More than a decade of established public health policy goes out the window: The public should mask up. But not with medical-grade respirators – those are reserved for healthcare workers. Instead, people are urged to don cloth masks, which can be made at home in accordance with FDA manufacturing protocols.

The Masked War against Asymptomatic Spread of a Respiratory Virus –  long regarded by the CDC as an unnecessary and futile endeavor – begins.

April 4, 2020

The CDC updates its FAQ page about Covid-19. Citing “new data about how Covid-19 spreads, along with evidence of widespread Covid-19 illness in communities across the country,” the agency now recommends the use of cloth face coverings. They should be worn by “people older than 2 years of age in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.” The CDC stresses that these new recommendations do not apply to people who are “unconscious.”

May – December 2020

At the direction of the CDC, state and local governments begin to impose mask mandates. ‘Karens’ do battle with maskless grocery shoppers across the country. General chaos and deep paranoia ensue.

An article in the British Medical Journal notes that the whole debate seems rather silly considering that PCR tests do not distinguish live virus and therefore cannot reliably identify “asymptomatic” individuals: “As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.”

February 10, 2021

The CDC publishes a study of its own claiming that two face masks – colloquially known as “double masking” – can reduce an individual’s exposure to coronavirus particles.

However, the agency notes that the findings do not mean that Americans should wear two disposable masks at the same time. Instead, the data points to why “wearing a well-fitting mask is so important.”

Everyone is very impressed, but by now masks are not in fashion. Millions of vaccinated Americans, who’d been told that getting jabbed would give them unprecedented protection against Covid-19, begin to wonder why they are being nudged to put on another mask instead of being encouraged to take off the face-covering that they’re already wearing. Patience, little lambs.

March 8, 2021

Finally: Fully vaccinated Americans don’t need to wear masks when meeting indoors with close friends and family who have also been jabbed, the CDC announces. Vaccinated individuals are still warned against traveling or gathering in large groups.

April 27, 2021

The CDC says that fully vaccinated people can forgo masks at small outdoor gatherings. However, masks are still recommended when attending large outdoor events. Vaccinated individuals should also limit nursing home visits to “compassionate care situations.”

May 13, 2021

Americans who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 do not need to wear masks or adhere to social distancing rules indoors or outdoors, except under certain circumstances, the CDC announces.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky describes the policy shift as an “exciting and powerful moment.”

July 9, 2021

Fully vaccinated teachers and students don’t need to wear masks inside school buildings, the CDC says, in updated guidance for schools.

July 21, 2021

Fauci tells CNBC that “the broad overall CDC recommendation is that if you are vaccinated, you are protected and you don’t need to wear a mask indoor or outdoors.” He then suggests that people living in areas with a “high level of transmission” should mask up anyway.

“If you want to go the extra mile of safety, even though you’re vaccinated, when you’re indoors, particularly in crowded places, you might want to consider wearing a mask,” he says, seconds after citing CDC guidance stating the exact opposite.

July 27, 2021

Citing the spread of the more infectious Delta strain, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated Americans living in areas with “substantial or high transmission” of Covid-19 should once again resume wearing masks indoors.

The agency also says that masks should be required of all staff and pupils at K-12 schools. Vaccinated individuals should wear face coverings when around family members who have compromised immune systems, or children who are too young to get the shot, the CDC further advises.

Heads down, masks up

So there you have it. As this modest historical survey demonstrates, the CDC, Fauci, and the entire US medical establishment have shown tremendous bravery as they diligently pursue this week’s rendition of The Science. Evidence can change over time. But only with masks does it seem to turn on a dime.

Americans live in the best of all possible masked worlds, and they have Anthony Fauci and the CDC to thank for it.

Source: Waking Times & Open Source Truth

by

DARPA’s Bio Chip Implants Due Out 2021 | Principia Scientific International | Mint Press News

By Raul Diego

The most significant scientific discovery since gravity has been hiding in plain sight for nearly a decade and its destructive potential to humanity is so enormous that the biggest war machine on the planet immediately deployed its vast resources to possess and control it, financing its research and development through agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and HHS’ BARDA.

The revolutionary breakthrough came to a Canadian scientist named Derek Rossi in 2010 purely by accident. The now-retired Harvard professor claimed in an interview with the National Post that he found a way to “reprogram” the molecules that carry the genetic instructions for cell development in the human body, not to mention all biological lifeforms.

These molecules are called ‘messenger ribonucleic acid’ or mRNA and the newfound ability to rewrite those instructions to produce any kind of cell within a biological organism has radically changed the course of Western medicine and science, even if no one has really noticed yet. As Rossi, himself, puts it:

“The real important discovery here was you could now use mRNA, and if you got it into the cells, then you could get the mRNA to express any protein in the cells, and this was the big thing.”

It was so big that by 2014, Rossi was able to retire after the company he co-founded with Flagship Pioneering private equity firm to exploit his innovation, – Moderna Inc., attracted almost a half billion dollars in federal award monies to begin developing vaccines using the technology.

No longer affiliated with Moderna beyond his stock holdings, Rossi is just “watching for what happens next” and if he’s anything like the doting “hockey dad” he is portrayed to be, he must be horrified.

Remote Control Biology

As early as 2006, DARPA was already researching how to identify viral, upper respiratory pathogens through its Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) program, which led to the creation of the agency’s Biological Technologies Office (BTO), as reported by Whitney Webb in a May article for The Last American Vagabond. In 2014, DARPA’s BTO launched its “In Vivo Nanoplatforms” (IVN) program, which researches implantable nanotechnologies, leading to the development of ‘hydrogel’.

Hydrogel is a nanotechnology whose inventor early on boasted that “If [it] pans out, with approval from FDA, then consumers could get the sensors implanted in their core to measure their levels of glucose, oxygen, and lactate.” This contact lens-like material requires a special injector to be introduced under the skin where it can transmit light-based digital signals through a wireless network like 5G.

Once firmly implanted inside the body, human cells are at the mercy of any mRNA program delivered via this substrate, unleashing a nightmare of possibilities. It is, perhaps, the first true step towards full-on transhumanism; a “philosophy” that is in vogue with many powerful and influential people, such as Google’s Ray Kurzweil and Eric Schmidt and whose proponents see the fusion of technology and biology as an inevitable consequence of human progress.

The private company created to market this technology, that allows for biological processes to be controlled remotely and opens the door to the potential manipulation of our biological responses and, ultimately, our entire existence, is called Profusa Inc and its operations are funded with millions from NIH and DARPA. In March, the company was quietly inserted into the crowded COVID-19 bazaar in March 2020, when it announced an injectable biochip for the detection of viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.

A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary

In July, a preliminary report funded by Fauci’s NIAID and the NIH on an mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, concluding that mRNA-1273 vaccine. provided by Moderna for the study, “induced anti–SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in all participants, and no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified,” and supported “further development of this vaccine.”

A month earlier, the NIH had claimed a joint stake in Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, citing a contract signed in December, 2019, stipulating that the “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by both parties. Moderna disputes the federal government’s position, stating that the company “has a broad owned and licensed IP estate” and is “not aware of any IP that would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates, including mRNA-1273.”

A poster seeking volunteers to take part in a COVID-19 vaccine study by the NIH and Moderna Inc., July 27, 2020, in Binghamton, N.Y. Hans Pennink | AP

The only obstacle is a delivery system, which though Moderna claims to be developing separately, is unlikely to get FDA approval before the federal government’s own DARPA-developed hydrogel technology, in tandem with Profusa’s DARPA-funded light sensor technology, which is expected to receive fast track authorization from the Food and Drug Administration by early 2021 and, more than likely, used to deploy a coronavirus vaccine with the capacity to literally change our DNA.

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently investigating Moderna’s patent filings, claiming it failed to disclose “federal government support” in its COVID vaccine candidate patent applications, as required by law. The technicality could result in the federal government owning a 100 percent stake in mRNA-1273.

Source: Principia Scientific International

by

Western Wildfires Are Due to Arson and Stupidity, Not Climate Change | American Thinker

By Chris Talgo <ctalgo@heartland.org>

Unfortunately, we are living in a world where facts don’t matter much anymore. For instance, the wildfires that have swept across the western United States over the past few weeks are being almost universally blamed on climate change, even though the facts tell otherwise.

The fires in California and Oregon are not due to climate change. They are due to arson and sheer stupidity on the part of many, including those who are responsible for the environmental stewardship that is supposed to prevent them in the first place.

According to the Cal Fire San Bernardino Unit, “the El Dorado Fire, burning near Oak Glen in San Bernardino County, was caused by a smoke generating pyrotechnic device, used during a gender reveal party.” Chalk this one up to stupidity, not climate change.

Likewise, the Almeda Fire in Oregon, which has burned more than 600 homes, cannot be tied to climate change whatsoever because it was caused by arsonists. As Ashland Police Chief Tighe O’Meara said, “We have good reason to believe that there was a human element to it. We’re going to pursue it as a criminal investigation until we have reason to believe that it was otherwise.”

There are several more reports of arsonists instigating the blazes that are currently destroying hundreds of thousands of acres in the West.

Despite these facts, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), recently said, “Mother Earth is angry. She’s telling us, whether, she’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is, that climate crisis is real and has an impact.”

Of course, Pelosi didn’t offer one iota of evidence to support her contention that climate change is somehow responsible for all this. And since when did Mother Earth begin speaking to the Speaker of the House?

Not to be outdone, California Gov. Gavin Newsom also laid blame for his state’s out-of-control wildfires on climate change. “I say this lovingly — not as an ideologue, but as someone who prides himself on being open to argument, interested in evidence — but I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers,” Newsom said. “It’s completely inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground, the facts as we are experiencing. You may not believe it intellectually, but your own eyes, your own experiences tell a different story.”

Conveniently, Newsom failed to mention that California has one of the poorest records of implementing commonsense environmental stewardship protocols, which no doubt has played a significant factor in the Golden State’s proclivity for wildfires over the past several years.

According to California’s state oversight agency, “During its review, the Commission found that California’s forests suffer from neglect and mismanagement, resulting in overcrowding that leaves them susceptible to disease, insects and wildfire.”

In other words, under decades of Democratic leadership, California has woefully underinvested in forest management efforts, which have left forests grossly overgrown and prone to wildfire.

Making matters worse, California’s insistence on becoming the renewable energy utopia of the United States has led the state’s primary energy utility, PG&E, to disregard properly maintaining existing energy infrastructure.

As the San Diego Union Tribune reports, “every dollar spent on additional costs of renewable energy results in a dollar not available to spend on culling vegetation, insulating power lines, placing lines underground and other measures.”

As if that were not enough, the article also notes, “a report prepared by the independent consulting firm Beacon Economics for the San Francisco-based think tank Next 10 estimated California wildfires last year produced about nine times more emissions than were reduced across the entire state’s economy between 2016 and 2017 — and wildfires contributed more than the commercial, residential or agriculture sectors did in 2017.”

Ironically, Newsom’s naïve attempt (and his predecessors) to make the Golden State the renewable energy mecca has actually led to more carbon emissions because the state’s abundant forests have been turned into a giant tinderbox.

Adding insult to injury, Newsom has pledged to double-down on his efforts to make California more reliant on renewable energy, regardless of the uptick in wildfires and rolling blackouts.

And the claim that wildfires are increasing is 100 percent false. According to the Congressional Research Service, the prevalence of wildfires has decreased over the past three decades. As the report notes, “Over the past 10 years, there were an average of 64,100 wildfires annually and an average of 6.8 million acres burned annually. In 2019, 50,477 wildfires burned 4.7 million acres nationwide, below the annual average for both statistics.”

John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things. They cannot be altered by our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions.”

Fact-shunners like Gov. Newsom and Rep. Pelosi ought to put their wishes and passions aside and deal with the reality that their state is being decimated by wildfires due to their incompetence and ignorance, not because of so-called climate change.

Source: American Thinker

by

Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom | Liberty International


Author’s Note: Five months of intensive research, collating 670 research and news sources, are compacted in this succinct, readable and entertaining 167-page compendium about the “pandemic”. It provides a comprehensive overview for those with an open mind, still willing to learn, to expand perspectives far beyond media tidbits. This is the Dawning of the Corona Age. 

May we remove our masks – and blindfolds – to take notice of what is actually rapidly happening around us to navigate how we can still “live free in an unfree world”.

This newly released book is dedicated to You. Thank you for educating yourself, “thinking twice before you think”, calmly sharing your insights, acting wisely and thereby reclaiming authority over your life! Enjoy the first chapter of thirty-two below. 

“A compelling exploration far beyond the immediate impacts of the “pandemic”, Dawning of the Corona Age imagines how our human world may be altered long into an uncertain future. “

$10 PDF ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=H7ZVUNGC58QE2

$25 PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=QCQQL3JUTVURE (includes PDF Version with 670 Live Links)

$25 AMAZON PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FSR3NJG

THE PANDEMIC:
Season 1, Episode 1 

1. Preface & Introduction

Like a television series straight out of science fiction films, such as, V for Vendetta, Pandemic and The Matrix, the mainstream media narrative relentlessly broadcast at “We the People” seemed at first as surreal and as strange as an episode of The Twilight Zone. 

Now, suddenly, and apparently without warning, we are living in a strange hybrid between George Orwell’s novel 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and The Matrix. Science fiction has now become real.

George Orwell wisely observed that, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” In 1958, Aldous Huxley warned that, “Pharmacology and propaganda will make the masses love their slavery. As the world is forced into accepting greater and greater levels of government control in all areas of life, remember that nothing in politics happens by chance. There is a science to creating empires.” 

As  the lead character Orpheus revealed in The Matrix film, “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”

These perspectives reflect a deeper sense of what may be happening in our world today. For those open-minded enough to consider the truth as more important than convention and its lies, that sobriety is more essential than distorted states of consciousness, that the Earth and all of its natural wonders are more beautiful than any virtual reality, this book may just break open the possibility of a transformation of our understanding of this “pandemic”. 

In truth, this may be the “crowning” of a “new age” of consciousness emerging from the rubble of an old world dying around us. A “Corona” age may very well be on the horizon if we act from a higher understanding of our own existence as true human beings instead of from our limited perspectives of material existence.

For those with the courage to question authority, to question even our present sense of reality, this book is for you.

“Do not believe in what you have heard; do not blindly believe in traditions just because they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe in anything just because it is rumored and spoken by many; do not believe merely because a written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in conjectures; do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached from habit; do not believe merely
the authority of your teachers and elders,
or news sources or books.

Question all authorities and truisms.

Decide for yourself what is the veracity of your perceptions.
Ponder what is not true. Even more so, ponder what is true, deeply and continuously.”
~ Buddha

$10 PDF ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=H7ZVUNGC58QE2

$25 PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=QCQQL3JUTVURE (includes PDF Version with 670 Live Links)

$25 AMAZON PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FSR3NJG

THE PANDEMIC: COVID-19, Season 1, Episode 1

  1. DumbedDownPreface and Introduction (PDF)
  2. Seven Known Strains of Coronavirus (PDF)
  3. COVID-19 Did Not Naturally Occur By Animal to Human Contact
  4. China’s COVID-19 Coverup
  5. Faulty Computer Simulations & Projections
  6. Skepticism of Mainstream Narratives & Projections
  7. Herd/Individual Immunity, Lockdowns & Quarantines
  8. The Immune System is Your Primary Defense
  9. How Contagious is COVID-19?
  10. “Exosomes” as a Natural Release of the Human Body
  11. Masks or No Masks?
  12. Invalid Testing & Inconclusive Diagnosis for COVID-19
  13. Inflated Death Rates & Asymptomatic Cases
  14. Hydroxychloroquine is an Effective Treatment
  15. Emerging & Effective Treatment Protocols
  16. Questioning the Need, Safety & Efficacy of a Vaccine for COVID-19
  17. Dangers of Vaccines Laced with Toxic Materials
  18. Germ Theory is the Wrong Approach, Look to the Biome

THE LOCKDOWN: Season 1, Episode 2

  1. CoronaWorldInternational, National & State Declarations of Emergency
  2. COVID-19 & The 5G Factor
  3. Total Surveillance State & The Right to Privacy
  4. Legal Authorities for U.S. Public Health Officials & State Governors
  5. Stimulus Bills Are Fast Tracks to Socialism & U.S. Bankruptcy
  6. Chinese Coverup & Propaganda
  7. Undeclared War Between China & United States
  8. Global Goals of the Pandemic
  9. The New World Order
  10. Big Pharma Funding Regulatory Agencies Providing Oversight & Developing Public Policy
  11. Internet Censorship & Medical Fascism
  12. The Global Health Protection Racket
  13. The Future Ain’t What it Used to Be

THE CORONA AGE: 2020 & BEYOND, Season 2

  1. BecomeEnlightenedDawning of the Corona Age

APPENDIX

by

The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And Contact Tracing | Technocracy News

man-behind-mask-777x437By Patrick Wood

Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups or even entire societies.

Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet.

The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.

Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”  The Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.“

Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was most inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.

In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.

Face masks

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states that cloth face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” 

But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”

But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated,

OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work.Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.

Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed most.

So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks.

The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.

But, what about asymptomatic carriers?

On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of a number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated “From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”

This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”

It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.

In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” (Blaylock represents real science.)

Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face masks for preventing disease,

  • States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn by all citizens when outside their home
  • Large and small companies are forcing their employees to wear masks
  • People at large are scared to death to not wear a face mask for fear of getting sick or being mask-shamed by others if they take it off.

A Matter of Oxygen

Face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available for inhaling.

Normal fresh air contains 20.95% oxygen. OSHA defines an oxygen deficient atmosphere as an “atmosphere with an oxygen content below 19.5% by volume.”  The reason we breathe air is only for our lungs to harvest the oxygen it contains so that we don’t suffocate and die.

OSHA documents the effects of the first level of oxygen deficiency from 16% to 19.5%:

At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). Increased breathing rates, accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment. Even a momentary loss of coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing a ladder.

This writer has already encountered several store employees, forced to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit one or more of these exact symptoms. When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.

Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks are required to do two things: first, they must provide atmospheric testing to each person to measure average oxygen levels inside the mask when it is being worn and second, if oxygen is below 19.5%, they must be provided with an oxygen enriched breathing system.

To this writer’s knowledge, there has been zero testing of oxygen levels anywhere in the country even though it is plainly clear that many people are experiencing symptoms of oxygen deficiency.

Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for all citizens in public places. That they have fallen prey to pseudo-science is now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.

Social Distancing

Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.

Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph (UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule.

According to these scientists,

The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants do not remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies look back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they stood from others.

More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting Covid.

Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,

On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.

This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results.

What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences.

Contact Tracing

Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.

Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.

In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.

Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.

The Center for Disease Control website states that “Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”

Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,

Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.

If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now required to record the contact information of every patron, you might not have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.

Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.

Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first, the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is bogus.

So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people.

Conclusion

The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.

Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.

This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.

In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover, they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population…

It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack of real and verified science behind their actions and mandates. Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous to personal liberty.

This writer suggests that you print multiple copies of this report and deliver it to every political leader, every commercial establishment, all family and friends, etc.

Permission is granted to repost or reprint this article with original credit and direct link back to Technocracy.news. A PDF version suitable for printing may be downloaded here. 

Patrick Wood is editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order (2018), Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Professor Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development and Technocracy on a global scale.

Source: Technocracy News

by

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe | Scientific American

By Joel Moskovitz

Editor’s Note: Science is allegedly the foundation for sound reasoning when it comes to evaluating the short and long-term benefits (and drawbacks) of any new technology, but in the case of 5G there is no reliable science to assure us of its safety. Quite the contrary, it’s being deployed globally without concern for the safety of those exposed.

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization)increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

Joel M. Moskowitz

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.

Source: Scientific American

by

I’m a Retired Female Astronaut and I Can’t Understand the Obsession With ‘Gender Diverse’ Space Crews | Time Magazine

STS098-348-015 (7-20 February 2001) — Astronaut Marsha S. Ivins, STS-98 mission specialist, is photographed on the mid deck of the Earth-orbiting Space Shuttle Atlantis.

Editor’s Note: In America women have almost achieved equity with men and in many ways often unspoken have more opportunities than ever before. But you have to step up to take advantage of those opportunities. All it takes is courage. So American women, quit complaining about what you don’t have and appreciate what opportunities you do have. So many women of the world would love to trade places with you if only they could.

By Marsha Ivins

On Tuesday August 21, Vice President Pence chaired the sixth meeting of the recently revived National Space Council, a group originally chartered in 1958, disbanded in 1993 and then revived under the current administration to help chart the direction of America’s activities in space. There were four guest panelists highlighted at the end of the session. One spoke about nuclear power and nuclear thermal propulsion for spaceflight; one spoke about in situresource utilization on the Moon and Mars; and one spoke about planetary exploration, the Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan in particular. All were interesting and appropriate topics for a meeting whose topic was, well, the future of space exploration.

And then there was Saralyn Mark, an M.D. and specialist in gender-based medicine, who spoke about gender bias. Her main point: NASA needs to — no kidding — realize there are gender differences because sending “gender diverse” crews to Mars is going to be difficult. At least I think that was her point. It was frankly hard to listen to because enough already!

We’ve been sending gender-diverse crews to space since 1983. We’ve had women do every job a man does in space. Every one. Space walks? Check. Shuttle commander? Check. Space Station commander? Check. Record for long-duration flights? Check. So what’s going to be the new gender-bias thing NASA needs to start — start? — paying attention to?

Oh I could tell you tales from bygone days of the male engineers’ original ideas of clothing and hygiene products for women astronauts. I was working as an engineer at NASA then in the human factors and cockpit design group. And I was there to support our first women in space, but we are talking the late ’70s, early ‘80s. By the time I flew in space in the ‘90s, those things had changed; they’d evolved, emerged, progressed and been accommodated for. By then a crew member was just a crew member. The same is true today. They get what they need physically, personally and emotionally to support them in spaceflight. Not a big deal. So why the continued insistence on making it a big deal?

And why keep bringing up the NASA-doesn’t-make-a-spacesuit-that-fits-a-woman story? The truth behind the cancellation last April of the “all-female spacewalk” was that it was a woman’s call! After doing her first spacewalk, Anne McClain realized that the task on the next one would require a longer arm reach than she had. Sure, they could have redesigned the choreography for that spacewalk, taken the time and the effort to delay the mission, replan and retrain for it. “But why?” she said. Let crewmate Nick Hague do it — he’s trained and he has a longer reach. Need a different tool to get the job done? Go to the toolbox and get a different tool.

It was never the crew’s idea to do an all-female spacewalk in the first place. They are all professional, trained, hardworking, no-nonsense crew members. That’s teamwork at its finest, not a defeat for womankind. Nothing to see here.

Dr. Mark’s big pitch is that diversity demands attention, especially in situations like a long space flight during which people have to understand their differences and get along. Well, what about six men and women on the Space Shuttle or the International Space Station representing multiple nationalities, different ethnicities and religions, and — in their home countries — competitive political ideologies? That’s not diverse enough for you? NASA has been doing this quietly and efficiently and without fanfare for the better part of the past 36 years.

After Dr. Mark’s testimony, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine once again mentioned how inspired his 11-year old daughter would be to see women taking leadership positions in space exploration. Well, Mr. Bridenstine, your agency has had women in leadership roles on and off the planet far longer than you have held your current position. And there have been women astronauts living, working and leading on spacecraft decades longer than your daughter has been alive. Why is she not inspired by that?

Source: Time Magazine

by

NASA-Backed Study Says Humanity Is Pretty Much Screwed | Gizmodo

By Robert Sorokonitch

HotEarthHope you’ve enjoyed civilized life, folks. Because a new study sponsored by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center says the world’s industrial societies are poised to collapse under the weight of their own unsustainable appetites for resources. There goes the weekend . . . and everything after it for the rest of our lives.

NASA released a statement clarifying its involvement, saying this study “was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity.”

The research article appears in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Ecological Economics, but Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, has a more understandable (but no less harrowing) summary over at The Guardian. Either way, the news isn’t good—as the researchers point out, history doesn’t seem to hold out any favor for advanced societies.

The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.

Who’s to blame? You. Me. Everyone walking around outside your window. Even the technology we invented to save us from ourselves is contributing to our decline.

Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.

Is there a way out? Of course. But you’re probably not gonna like it. Dr. Ahmed sums up the researchers’ suggestions:

The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth.

Which is just as difficult and improbable as it sounds.

Seriously, you should read the whole rundown of what the research says. It’s eye-opening, and a serious call to action—if the crushing bleakness of what we’ve done to ourselves hasn’t already doomed you to abandon all hope. Here, watch a funny video to make you feel better. [The Guardian]

Source: Gizmodo

by

Radiation Protection | What Is Radiation

radiationprotection144Radiation protection is surprisingly easy. The primary concern for most people is not shielding from direct exposure as a nuclear power plant worker might experience. Instead, radiation protection from internal exposure is what matters to most people.

Simple Radiation Protection Steps:

Radiation Protection From Internal Exposure

Ever since the first atomic test, radionuclides have been accumulating in the environment but radiation protection has been only a passing concern.

Some radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 with a half life of 8 days, pose only a short-term threat. Although it is a good idea to keep one’s Iodine levels up as part of a healthy nutrition regimen, overdosing on Potassium Iodide in reaction to news reports is not recommended. The most vulnerable are infants and developing fetuses, since radioactive Iodine-131 bio-concentrates by a factor of 1,000 in their growing tissues. Three months later, the opportunity for radiation protection will have passed.

Most radionuclides have longer half-lives and constitute a greater threat over time. In particular as regards radiation protection:

  • Cesium-137 has a half-life of  about 30 years and chemically mimics Potassium in the body. This means that quantities as a result of atmospheric atomic testing are still present in the environment at somewhere between 10-25 percent of their original strength. Quantities created from the Chernobyl catastrophe are still present at about 50% of their original levels. This Cesium-137 can find its way into our bodies through consumption of fruits, vegetables and meats.
  • Strontium-90 has a half-life of about 28 years and chemically mimics Calcium in the body and thus shows up in the bones and teeth. This means that it is still present in the environment in quantities similar to Cesium-137.
  • Uranium-235 has a half-life of about 704 million years and chemically mimics Iron in the body. This means quantities released into the environment through atmospheric nuclear testing or nuclear accidents have not diminished substantially in their radioactivity over time.
  • Plutonium-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years and chemically mimics Iron in the body. This means quantities released into the environment through atmospheric nuclear testing or nuclear accidents have not diminished substantially in their radioactivity over time.

Radiation protection for the above contaminants is accomplished through mineralization and chelation. Although these radionuclides have been accumulating in the environment since the first atomic test, it is difficult to establish direct cause-and-effect links between exposure and subsequent cancers for two reasons:

  1. There is a latency period of from 5 to 20 years between exposure and the appearance of associated cancers.
  2. Many consequences may be classified as “Stochastic Effects” meaning that chance plays a role. This means that statistically, cancers will show up as percentages within an exposed population, but it is difficult to predict individual outcomes.

Source: What Is Radiation?