Flashback: Fauci’s NIH funded experiments on AIDS orphans in New York City
Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) “began testing drugs on its orphan population in 1992
byWorldTribuneStaff, October 26, 2021
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved drug trial experiments on hundreds of AIDS orphans in New York City. Over 200 of the orphans died during or after the experiments, according to Liam Scheff, the investigative reporter who broke the story.
Scheff said his investigation found that the NIH and Columbia Presbyterian Hospital acted unethically.
The Associated Press reported in June 2005: “The government has concluded at least some AIDS drug experiments involving foster children violated federal rules designed to ensure vulnerable youths were protected from the risks of medical research.”
Fauci was the NIH AIDS Coordinator before being appointed as the first Director of the Office of AIDS research when the office was established in 1988. He served in that capacity until 1994. Fauci became director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984 and still holds that position.
Scheff reported several deaths in children at the ICC during the drug trials, adding that “although the mainstream denied that any deaths were due to drug toxicity, they admit that over 200 children died.”
In 2005, the City of New York hired the VERA Institute to produce a final report on the drug trials. VERA was given no access to medical records for any of the children used in trials. Their report was published in 2008.
VERA reported that 25 children died during the drug studies, that an additional 55 children died following the studies (in foster care), and, according to Tim Ross, Director of the Child Welfare program at VERA (as of 2009), 29 percent of the remaining 417 children who were used in drug studies had died (out of a total 532 children that are admitted to have been used).
No payment or compensation was ever paid to any of the children used in the trials, or to their families, Scheff noted.
Many of the drugs (like AZT and its analogues) that were used in the experiments on the AIDS orphans in New York City had previously been approved for use in adults and “evidenced life-threatening and fatal toxicities,” Scheff reported. “So why put a drug with severe recorded toxicities into a population of black and Hispanic orphans?”
Scheff noted: “Incarnation’s orphans live at the bottom of the American class system. Often the children of drug users, they were born into ill health and poverty. Additionally (and like all AIDS patients), these children were, because of their HIV status, written off as a loss by the medical authority, before they even got a chance to live.”
Anthony Fauci
Why wasn’t Fauci’s NIH interested in competitive AIDS research?
“That’s the billion-dollar question,” Scheff noted. “That is, if inexpensive micronutrients and competitive disease and treatment models prove more successful than the current research, it will represent a loss of billions for the AIDS drug and research industry.”
We are witnessing crimes against humanity taking place all across this country and all over the world. Our friends and family members have been and are being harmed by measures ostensibly implemented to protect them and keep them safe.
Please fill out as much information as you can. While most fields are optional and the entire form does not to be completed in order to submit your story, the more information you are able to provide, the better we will be able to serve you and advance our mission.
Click link to document your story in the COVID-19 HUMANITY BETRAYAL MEMORY PROJECT.
We are witnessing crimes against humanity taking place all across this country and all over the world. Our friends and family members have been and are being harmed by measures ostensibly implemented to protect them and keep them safe.
Two Years of Isolation, Abuse & Mistreatment
For over two years, the people have been abused, manipulated, maligned, and sometimes even murdered in the name of public health. This has been and is still going on in hospitals, assisted living facilities, juvenile detention centers, schools, and really anywhere else that institutional mandates can be applied with force. We, the people harmed by these unamerican and unconstitutional measures, are dedicated to pushing back on this encroachment on our civil liberties, and putting a stop to these grievous harms the people are being forced to endure at the hands of those entrusted to protect them.
Never Forget
This is one of many projects developed to defend our liberties undertaken by the FFFF. The primary goal of this project is to document, archive, and assist those impacted by these crimes against humanity. We are taking testimonials from those who have survived the protocols mandated by these disastrous policies, interviewing victims and family members to validate their stories, and documenting and archiving everything. We will not allow the victims of these crimes against humanity to go unheard.
Managed By FFFF Citizens Task Force
The FFFF Task Force is composed of survivors, victims, and families of victims who have suffered grievous harm as a result of malicious public health policy. If you have been harmed by the disastrous public health policies of the last two years and would like to help others and raise awareness, please Join the FFFF Task Force today.
Ivermectin has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells. This may be related to the regulation of multiple signaling pathways by ivermectin through PAK1 kinase. On the other hand, ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Ivermectin induces apoptosis and autophagy is mutually regulated. Interestingly, ivermectin can also inhibit tumor stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and still lacks effective therapy. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been shown to possess anti-inflammation, anti-virus, and antitumor properties. However, whether ivermectin affects CRC is still unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of ivermectin on CRC using CRC cell lines SW480 and SW1116. We used CCK-8 assay to determine the cell viability, used an optical microscope to measure cell morphology, used Annexin V-FITC/7-AAD kit to determine cell apoptosis, used Caspase 3/7 Activity Apoptosis Assay Kit to evaluate Caspase 3/7 activity, used Western blot to determine apoptosis-associated protein expression, and used flow cytometry and fluorescence microscope to determine the reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and cell cycle. The results demonstrated that ivermectin dose-dependently inhibited colorectal cancer SW480 and SW1116 cell growth, followed by promoting cell apoptosis and increasing Caspase-3/7 activity. Besides, ivermectin upregulated the expression of proapoptotic proteins Bax and cleaved PARP and downregulated antiapoptotic protein Bcl-2. Mechanism analysis showed that ivermectin promoted both total and mitochondrial ROS production in a dose-dependent manner, which could be eliminated by administering N-acetyl-l-cysteine (NAC) in CRC cells. Following NAC treatment, the inhibition of cell growth induced by ivermectin was reversed. Finally, ivermectin at low doses (2.5 and 5 µM) induced CRC cell arrest. Overall, ivermectin suppressed cell proliferation by promoting ROS-mediated mitochondrial apoptosis pathway and inducing S phase arrest in CRC cells, suggesting that ivermectin might be a new potential anticancer drug therapy for human colorectal cancer and other cancers.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Figures
FIGURE 1 The chemical structure of ivermectin… FIGURE 2 Ivermectin inhibits cell proliferation of… FIGURE 3 The effect of ivermectin on… FIGURE 4 Ivermectin induced apoptosis in colorectal… FIGURE 5 Effect of ivermectin on Caspase…
Anti-parasite drug ivermectin can suppress ovarian cancer by regulating lncRNA-EIF4A3-mRNA axes
Na Li and Xianquan Zhan
Additional article information
Associated Data
Supplementary Materials
Abstract
Relevance
Ivermectin, as an old anti-parasite drug, can suppress almost completely the growth of various human cancers, including ovarian cancer (OC). However, its anticancer mechanism remained to be further studied at the molecular levels. Ivermectin-related molecule-panel changes will serve a useful tool for its personalized drug therapy and prognostic assessment in OCs.
Purpose
To explore the functional significance of ivermectin-mediated lncRNA-EIF4A3-mRNA axes in OCs and ivermectin-related molecule-panel for its personalized drug therapy monitoring.
Methods
Based on our previous study, a total of 16 lncRNA expression
Unhealthy Landscapes: Policy Recommendations on Land Use Change and Infectious Disease Emergence
The could possibly be the rabbit hole from Hell… Some of it seems like it could make sense but that’s how the work. I wonder what one would find if they dug deep – real deep and followed the money Trail on this subject???
Anthropogenic land use changes drive a range of infectious disease outbreaks and emergence events and modify the transmission of endemic infections. These drivers include agricultural encroachment, deforestation, road construction, dam building, irrigation, wetland modification, mining, the concentration or expansion of urban environments, coastal zone degradation, and other activities. These changes in turn cause a cascade of factors that exacerbate infectious disease emergence, such as forest fragmentation, disease introduction, pollution, poverty, and human migration. The Working Group on Land Use Change and Disease Emergence grew out of a special colloquium that convened international experts in infectious diseases, ecology, and environmental health to assess the current state of knowledge and to develop recommendations for addressing these environmental health challenges.
The group established a systems model approach and priority lists of infectious diseases affected by ecologic degradation. Policy-relevant levels of the model include:
specific health risk factors, landscape or habitat change, and institutional (economic and behavioral) levels.
a) to provide information to local communities about the links between environmental change and public health;
b) to facilitate fully interdisciplinary research from a variety of natural, social, and health sciences and train professionals who can conduct interdisciplinary research; and
c) to engage in science-based communication and assessment for policy making toward sustainable health and ecosystems.
Human-induced land use changes are the primary drivers of a range of infectious disease outbreaks and emergence events and also modifiers of the transmission of endemic infections (Patz et al. 2000).
These land use changes include:
deforestation
road construction
agricultural encroachment
dam building
irrigation
coastal zone degradation
wetland modification
mining
the concentration or expansion of urban environments
and other activities.
These changes in turn cause a cascade of factors that exacerbate infectious disease emergence, such as forest fragmentation, pathogen introduction, pollution, poverty, and human migration. These are important and complex issues that are understood only for a few diseases. For example, recent research has shown that forest fragmentation, urban sprawl, and biodiversity loss are linked to increased risk for Lyme disease in the northeastern United States (Schmidt and Ostfeld 2001). Expansion and changes in agricultural practices are intimately associated with the emergence of Nipah virus in Malaysia (Chua et al. 1999; Lam and Chua 2002), cryptosporidiosis in Europe and North America, and a range of food-borne illnesses globally (Rose et al. 2001). Road building is linked to the expansion of bushmeat consumption that may have played a key role in the early emergence of human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2 (Wolfe et al. 2000), and simian foamy virus has been found in bushmeat hunters (Wolfe et al. 2004).
In recognition of the complexity of land use change and the risks and benefits to human health that it entails, a special colloquium titled “Unhealthy Landscapes: How Land Use Change Affects Health” was convened at the 2002 biennial meeting of the International Society for Ecosystem Health (6–11 June 2002, Washington, DC) to address this issue. The invited experts worked to establish consensus on the current state of science and identify key knowledge gaps underlying this issue. This article condenses the working group’s report and presents a new research and policy agenda for understanding land use change and its effects on human health. Specifically, we discuss land-use drivers or human activities that exacerbate infectious diseases; the land–water interface, common to many infectious disease life cycles; and conclusions and recommendations for research and training from the working group.
Land-Use Drivers of Infectious Disease Emergence
The emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) resulting from land use change can be entirely new to a specific location or host species. This may occur either from “spillover” or cross-species transmission or simply by extension of geographic range into new or changed habitats. More than 75% of human diseases are zoonotic and have a link to wildlife and domestic animals (Taylor et al. 2001).
The working group developed an extensive list of processes by which land use affects human health (specifically, infectious disease occurrence) and of other factors that contribute to this relationship: agricultural development, urbanization, deforestation, population movement, increasing population, introduction of novel species/pathogens, water and air pollution, biodiversity loss, habit fragmentation, road building, macro and micro climate changes, hydrological alteration, decline in public health infrastructure, animal-intensive systems, eutrophication, military conflict, monocropping, and erosion (ranked from highest to lowest public health impact by meeting participants). The four mechanisms that were felt to have the greatest impact on public health were changes to the physical environment; movement of populations, pathogens, and trade; agriculture; and urbanization. War and civil unrest were also mentioned as a potentially acute and cross-cutting driver. Infectious disease agents with the strongest documented or suspected links to land use change are listed in Table 1.
Changes to the biophysical environment.
Deforestation.
Rates of deforestation have grown exponentially since the beginning of the 20th century. Driven by rapidly increasing human population numbers, large swaths of species-rich tropical and temperate forests, as well as prairies, grasslands, and wetlands, have been converted to species-poor agricultural and ranching areas. The global rate of tropical deforestation continues at staggering levels, with nearly 2–3% of forests lost globally each year. Parallel with this habitat destruction is an exponential growth in human–wildlife interaction and conflict. This has resulted in exposure to new pathogens for humans, livestock, and wildlife (Wolfe et al. 2000). Deforestation and the processes that lead to it have many consequences for ecosystems. Deforestation decreases the overall habitat available for wildlife species. It also modifies the structure of environments, for example, by fragmenting habitats into smaller patches separated by agricultural activities or human populations. Increased “edge effect” (from a patchwork of varied land uses) can further promote interaction among pathogens, vectors, and hosts. This edge effect has been well documented for Lyme disease (Glass et al. 1995). Similarly, increased activity in forest habitats (through behavior or occupation) appears to be a major risk factor for leishmaniasis (Weigle et al. 1993). Evidence is mounting that deforestation and ecosystem changes have implications for the distribution of many other microorganisms and the health of human, domestic animal, and wildlife populations.
One example of the effects of land use on human health is particularly noteworthy. Deforestation, with subsequent changes in land use and human settlement patterns, has coincided with an upsurge of malaria and/or its vectors in Africa (Coluzzi 1984, 1994; Coluzzi et al. 1979), in Asia (Bunnag et al. 1979), and in Latin America (Tadei et al. 1998). When tropical forests are cleared for human activities, they are typically converted into agricultural or grazing lands. This process is usually exacerbated by construction of roads, causing erosion and allowing previously inaccessible areas to become colonized by people (Kalliola and Flores Paitán 1998). Cleared lands and culverts that collect rainwater are in some areas far more suitable for larvae of malaria-transmitting anopheline mosquitoes than are intact forests (Charlwood and Alecrim 1989; Jones 1951; Marques 1987).
Another example of the effects of land use on human health involves deforestation and noninfectious disease: the contamination of rivers with mercury. Soil erosion after deforestation adds significant mercury loads, which are found naturally in rainforest soils, to rivers. This has led to fish in the Amazon becoming hazardous to eat (Fostier et al. 2000; Veiga et al. 1994).
Habitat fragmentation.
This alters the composition of host species in an environment and can change the fundamental ecology of microorganisms. Because of the nature of food webs within ecosystems, organisms at higher trophic levels exist at a lower population density and are often quite sensitive to changes in food availability. The smaller patches left after fragmentation often do not have sufficient prey for top predators, resulting in local extinction of predator species and a subsequent increase in the density of their prey species. Logging and road building in Latin America have increased the incidence of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis (Desjeux 2001), which in some areas has resulted from an increase in the number of fox reservoirs and sandfly vectors that have adapted to the peridomestic environment (Patz et al. 2000). Foxes, however, are not very important reservoirs for leishmaniasis in Latin America (Courtenay et al. 2002), and a more important factor in the transmission cycle includes domestic dogs.
Ostfeld and Keesing (2000) have demonstrated that smaller fragments in North American forests have fewer small mammal predators. Results suggest that the probability that a tick will become infected depends on not only the density of white-footed mice but also the density of mice relative to that of other hosts in the community. Under this scenario, the density effect of white-footed mice, which are efficient reservoirs for Lyme disease, can be “diluted” by an increasing density of alternative hosts, which are less efficient at transmitting Lyme disease. These results suggest that increasing host diversity (species richness) may decrease the risk of disease through a “dilution effect” (Schmidt and Ostfeld 2001).
Extractive industries.
Gold mining is an extractive industry that damages local and regional environments and has adverse human health effects, because mercury is used to extract gold from riverbeds in the tropical forests. Not only does mercury accumulate in local fish populations, making them toxic to eat (Lebel et al. 1996, 1998), but mercury also suppresses the human immune system. Also, in gold-mining areas, more mosquito-breeding sites and increased malaria risk result from digging gem pits in the forest and from craters resulting from logging; broader disease spread occurs as populations disperse throughout the region (Silbergeld et al. 2002).
Movement of populations, pathogens, and trade.
The movement of humans, domestic animals, wildlife populations, and agricultural products through travel, trade, and translocations is a driver of infectious disease emergence globally. These sometimes inadvertent, sometimes deliberate movements of infectious disease and vectors (e.g., the introduction of smallpox and measles to the Americas by Spanish conquistadors) will continue to rise via continually expanding global travel and by development of Third World populations. Human introduction of pathogens, hosts, or materials into new areas has been termed “pathogen pollution” (Daszak et al. 2000).
Land use changes drive some of these introductions and migrations and also increase the vulnerability of habitats and populations to these introductions. Human migrations also drive land use changes that in turn drive infectious disease emergence. For example, in China’s Yunnan Province, an increase in livestock populations and migration has led to an increase in the incidence of schistosomiasis (Jiang et al. 1997). In Malaysia, a combination of deforestation, drought, and wildfires has led to alterations in the population movements and densities of flying foxes, large fruit bats known to be the reservoir for the newly emergent zoonosis Nipah virus (Chua et al. 1999). It is believed that the increased opportunity for contact between infected bats and pigs produced the outbreak of the disease in pigs, which then was transmitted to people in contact with infected pigs (Aziz et al. 2002).
Another example of human-induced animal movement on a much larger scale is the international pet trade. This movement of animals involves many countries and allows for the introduction of novel pathogens, such as monkeypox, with the potential to damage ecosystems and threaten human and animal health. Monkeypox was originally associated with bushmeat hunting of red colobus monkeys (Procolobus badius); after a localized epidemic emerged in humans, monkeypox persisted for four generations via human-to-human contact (Jezek et al. 1986).
Human movement also has significant implications for public health. Not only are travelers (tourists, businesspeople, and other workers) at risk of contracting communicable diseases when visiting tropical countries, but they also can act as vectors for delivering infectious diseases to another region or, in the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), potentially around the world. Refugees account for a significant number of human migrants, carrying diseases such as hepatitis B and tuberculosis and various parasites (Loutan et al. 1997). Because of their status, refugees become impoverished and are more exposed to a wide range of health risks. This is caused by the disruption of basic health services, inadequate food and medical care, and lack of clean water and sanitation (Toole and Waldman 1997). People who cross international boundaries, such as travelers, immigrants, and refugees, may be at increased risk of contracting infectious diseases, especially those who have no immunity because the disease agents are uncommon in their native countries. Immigrants may come from nations where diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria are endemic, and refugees may come from situations where crowding and malnutrition create ideal conditions for the spread of diseases such as cholera, shigellosis, malaria, and measles [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 1998].
Zoonoses.
The importance of zoonotic diseases should be emphasized. Zoonotic pathogens are the most significant cause of EIDs affecting humans, both in the proportion of EIDs that they cause and in the impact that they have. Some 1,415 species of infectious organisms are known to be pathogenic to people, with 61% of them being zoonotic. Of the emerging pathogens, 75% are zoonotic, and zoonotic pathogens are twice as likely to be associated with emerging diseases than are nonzoonotic pathogens (Taylor et al. 2001). More important, zoonotic pathogens cause a series of EIDs with high case fatality rates and no reliable cure, vaccine, or therapy (e.g., Ebola virus disease, Nipah virus disease, and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome). Zoonotic pathogens also cause diseases that have some of the highest incidence rates globally [e.g., acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)]. AIDS is a special case, because it is caused by a pathogen that jumped host from nonhuman primates and then evolved into a new virus. Thus, it is in origin a zoonotic organism (Hahn et al. 2000).
Because of the important role of zoonoses in current public health threats, wildlife and domestic animals play a key role in the process by providing a “zoonotic pool” from which previously unknown pathogens may emerge (Daszak et al. 2001). The influenza virus is an example, causing pandemics in humans after periodic exchange of genes among the viruses of wild and domestic birds, pigs, and humans. Fruit bats are involved in a high-profile group of EIDs that includes rabies and other lyssaviruses, Hendra virus and Menangle virus (Australia), and Nipah virus (Malaysia and Singapore), which has implications for further zoonotic disease emergence. A number of species are endemic to both remote oceanic islands and more populous suburban and rural human settlements; these may harbor enzootic and potentially zoonotic pathogens with an unknown potential for spillover (Daszak et al. 2000).
Thus, some of the current major infectious threats to human health are EIDs and reemerging infectious diseases, with a particular emphasis on zoonotic pathogens transferring hosts from wildlife and domestic animals. A common, defining theme for most EIDs (of humans, wildlife, domestic animals, and plants) is that they are driven to emerge by anthropogenic changes to the environment. Because threats to wildlife habitat are so extensive and pervading, many of the currently important human EIDs (e.g., AIDS, Nipah virus disease) are driven partly by human-induced changes to wildlife habitat such as encroachment and deforestation. This is essentially a process of natural selection in which anthropogenic environmental changes perturb the host–parasite dynamic equilibrium, leading to the expansion of those strains suited to the new environmental conditions and facilitating expansion of others into new host species (Daszak et al. 2001).
Agriculture.
Crop irrigation and breeding sites.
Agriculture occupies about half of the world’s land and uses more than two-thirds of the world’s fresh water (Horrigan et al. 2002). Agricultural development in many parts of the world has increased the need for crop irrigation, which reduces water availability for other uses and increases breeding sites for disease vectors. An increase in soil moisture associated with irrigation development in the southern Nile Delta after the construction of the Aswan High Dam has caused a rapid rise in the mosquito Culex pipiens and consequential increase in the arthropod-borne disease Bancroftian filariasis (Harb et al. 1993; Thompson et al. 1996). Onchocerciasis and trypanosomiasis are further examples of vector-borne parasitic diseases that may be triggered by changing land-use and water management patterns. In addition, large-scale use of pesticides has had deleterious effects on farm workers, including hormone disruption and immune suppression (Straube et al. 1999).
Food-borne diseases.
Once agricultural development has expanded and produced food sufficient to meet local need, the food products are exported to other nations, where they can pose a risk to human health. The increase in imported foods has resulted in a rise in food-borne illness in the United States. Strawberries from Mexico, raspberries from Guatemala, carrots from Peru, and coconut milk from Thailand have caused recent outbreaks. Food safety is an important factor in human health, because food-borne disease accounts for an estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,200 deaths in the United States each year (CDC 2003). Other dangers include antibiotic-resistant organisms, such as Cyclospora, EscherichiacoliO157:H7, and other pathogenic E. coli strains associated with hemolytic uremic syndrome in children (Dols et al. 2001).
Secondary effects.
Agricultural secondary effects need to be minimized, such as the emerging microbial resistance from antibiotics in animal waste that is included in farm runoff and the introduction of microdams for irrigation in Ethiopia that resulted in a 7-fold increase in malaria (Ghebreyesus et al. 1999).
Urbanization.
On a global basis, the proportion of people living in urban centers will increase to an unprecedented 65% by the year 2030 (Population Reference Bureau 1998). The 2000 census shows that 80% of the U.S. population now lives in metropolitan areas, with 30% living in cities of 5 million or more. The environmental issues posed by such large population centers have profound impacts on public health beyond the city limits (Knowlton 2001).
Alterations of ecosystems and natural resources contribute to the emergence and spread of infectious disease agents. Human encroachment of wildlife habitat has broadened the interface between wildlife and humans, increasing opportunities for both the emergence of novel infectious diseases in wildlife and their transmission to people. Rabies is an example of a zoonotic disease carried by animals that has become habituated to urban environments. Bats colonize buildings, skunks and raccoons scavenge human refuse, and in many countries feral dogs in the streets are common and the major source of human infection (Singh et al. 2001).
Infectious diseases can also pass from people to wildlife. Nonhuman primates have acquired measles from ecotourists (Wallis and Lee 1999). Also, drug resistance in gram-negative enteric bacteria of wild baboons living with limited human contact is significantly less common than in baboons living with human contact near urban or semiurban human settlements (Rolland et al. 1985).
The Land–Water Interface
Another major driver of infectious disease emergence results from the land–water interface. Land use changes often involve water projects or coastal marine systems in which nutrients from agricultural runoff can cause algal blooms.
Currently the seventh Cholera pandemic is spreading across Asia, Africa, and South America. In 1992, a new serogroup (Vibrio cholerae O139) appeared and has been responsible for epidemics in Asia (Colwell 1996). The seasonality of cholera epidemics may be linked to the seasonality of plankton (algal blooms) and the marine food chain. Studies using remote-sensing data of chlorophyll-containing phytoplankton have shown a correlation between cholera cases and sea surface temperatures in the Bay of Bengal. Interannual variability in cholera incidence in Bangladesh is also linked to the El Niño southern oscillation and regional temperature anomalies (Lobitz et al. 2000), and cholera prevalence has been associated with progressively stronger El Niño events spanning a 70-year period (Rodo et al. 2002). This observation on cholera incidence may represent an early health indicator of global climate change (Patz 2002).
Infectious diseases in marine mammals and sea turtles could serve as sentinels for human disease risk. Sea turtles worldwide are affected by fibropapillomatosis, a disease probably caused by one or several viruses and characterized by multiple epithelial tumors. Field studies support the observation that prevalence of this disease is associated with heavily polluted coastal areas, areas of high human density, agricultural runoff, and/or biotoxin-producing algae (Aguirre and Lutz, in press). This represents the breakdown of the land–water interface, to the point that several pathogens typical of terrestrial ecosystems have become established in the oceans. Toxoplasmosis in the endangered sea otter (Enhydra lutris) represents an example of pathogen pollution. Massive mortalities in pinnipeds and cetaceans reaching epidemics of tens of thousands are caused by four morbilliviruses evolving from the canine distemper virus (Aguirre et al. 2002). Additionally, overfishing has myriad ramifications for marine ecosystems and sustainable protein food sources for human populations.
Cryptosporidium, a protozoan that completes its life cycle within the intestine of mammals, sheds high numbers of infectious oocysts that are dispersed in feces. A recent study found that 13% of finished treated water still contained Cryptosporidium oocysts, indicating some passage of microorganisms from source to treated drinking water (LeChevallier and Norton 1995). The protozoan is highly prevalent in ruminants and is readily transmitted to humans. Thus, management of livestock contamination of watersheds is an important public health issue.
One example of how overexploitation of a natural water resource led to infectious disease is that of Lake Malawi in Africa. Overfishing in the lake reduced the population of snail-eating fish to such a level that snail populations erupted. Subsequently, schistosomiasis incidence and prevalence markedly rose after this ecologic imbalance (Madsen et al. 2001).
Recommendations from the Working Group
Conceptual model: bringing land use into public health policy.
The recommendations stemming from the international colloquium are highly relevant to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), a broad multiagency/foundation-sponsored scientific assessment of degraded ecosystem effects on human well-being. A conceptual framework of the MEA already provides an approach to optimize the contribution of ecosystems to human health (MEA 2003). This framework offers a mechanism to a) identify options that can better achieve human development and sustainable goals, b) better understand the trade-offs involved in environment-related decisions, and c) align response options at all scales, from the local to the global, where they can be most effective. This conceptual framework focuses on human well-being while also recognizing associated intrinsic values. Similar to the MEA, focus is particularly on the linkages between ecosystem services and human health. Workshop participants developed a conceptual model (Figure 1). Like the MEA, it assumes a dynamic interaction between humans and ecosystems that warrants a multiscale assessment (spatial and temporal).
By using this framework, policy makers may approach development and health at various levels. These levels include specific health risk factors, landscape or habitat change, and institutional (economic and behavioral) levels. For sound health policy, we must shift away from dealing primarily with specific risk factors and look “upstream” to underlying land-use determinants of infectious disease and ultimately the human behavior and established institutions that are detrimental to sustainable population health. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a similar DPSEEA (driving forces, pressures, state, exposure, effect, actions) model that in a similar way describes the interlinkage between human health and different driving forces and environmental change (WHO 1997).
As such understanding increases, it will become more feasible to plan how to prevent new infectious disease emergence. Yet, because these are rare events, accurate predictions will remain daunting. It is already evident that inserting humans into complex ecosystems can lead to a variety of EIDs, but health outcomes depend on the economic circumstances of the human population. In poor and tropical communities, land use change can lead to major shifts in infectious disease patterns. For these situations, many conventional public health interventions can prevent several infectious diseases at relatively low cost. In rich and temperate-climate communities, the infectious disease shifts tend to be more disease specific, for example, in the case of Lyme disease and habitat fragmentation.
Research on deforestation and infectious disease.
Considering the deforestation that usually accompanies agricultural development, new conservation-oriented agriculture should be pursued. As discussed above, water project development and modern livestock management present major health disease risks. However, often the secondary unintended consequences can also wreak havoc; for example, a leaking dam may present greater risks than the reservoir itself. A distressingly large number of development projects not only have adverse effects on human health but also fail to attain their primary economic purposes in a sustainable manner.
Habitat fragmentation, whether caused by forest destruction, desertification, or land-use conversion, affects human and wildlife health and ecosystem processes. There is already much research undertaken by landscape ecologists on the consequences of habitat fragmentation for wildlife, especially larger animals. It would be important to study the effects of landscape fragmentation on public health hazards. Such research could entail three components. The first component consists of gathering baseline data, including using historical data where possible and beginning monitoring programs where necessary. Key data include identifying and quantifying the relevant pathogen load of wildlife, livestock, and human communities in fragmented landscapes. The goals of this data collection are, first, to identify key infectious diseases, both chronic and emergent or reemergent and, second, to document the consequences of fragmentation on relative abundance of wildlife and subsequent pathogen load. For example, the loss of large predators in fragmented habitats in the northeastern United States has led to a superabundance of rodent vectors for Lyme disease.
The second component of the research program would involve health impact modeling, primarily in three areas: a) estimating changes in the relative abundance of organisms, including infectious disease vectors, pathogens, and hosts; b) projecting potential vector or transmission shifts (e.g., should the Nipah virus shift to pulmonary as well as neurologic expression in humans as in swine); and c) projecting the impact of infectious diseases in a region on different geographic scales.
The results of these analyses, if successful, could support the third component of research: development of decision-support tools. Improved decisions on land-use policy could be made from a better understanding of costs and benefits to health and environmental decision makers. In all probability, however, they will be very location specific. For example, to construct an irrigation scheme in India would likely invite a malaria epidemic, whereas the same activity in sub-Saharan Africa may have little effect on malaria transmission. It is worth mentioning that costs and benefits could depend on the time course over which they are assessed. For example, some land-use changes can lead to short-term increases in transmission followed by longer-term decreases (e.g., irrigation and malaria in Sri Lanka) or vice versa (e.g., deforestation and cutaneous leishmaniasis in Latin America).
Policies to reduce microbial traffic/pathogen pollution.
In today’s interconnected world, it becomes very important to invest in the worldwide control of infectious diseases in developing countries, for example. It is also necessary to control transport to stem the flow from one place to the next.
Improved monitoring of trade is warranted in order to target infectious disease introductions. In the attempt to prevent the invasion of a pathogen (and drug-resistant organisms) into the vulnerable areas subject to land use changes, we need to pay greater attention to controls at the sources. We need to document and map these trades and investigate the vectors, the infectious diseases they harbor, and the populations they threaten. Risk assessment should guide surveillance and the development of test kits, targeting point-of-origin intervention to preempt these processes. Assessments must further include nonmarket costs (usually to the detriment of the environment and long-term sustainable health). We should communicate to both the exporters and consumers the need to make their trades clean, economically viable, and certified “clean and green” by an independent scientific agency at the source and/or destination. Additionally, strategies for screening travelers for pathogens that may be introduced to a region should be improved.
Centers of Excellence in Ecology and Health Research and Training.
One approach to developing the issues to which this article draws attention is the creation of a system of regional- or subregional-based interdisciplinary Centers of Excellence in Ecology and Health Research and Training. Based at regional universities and/or research institutes but with very close links to the surrounding communities, these centers would have the following objectives:
Providing information based on good science to local communities about the links between environmental change and public health, including the factors that contribute to specific infectious disease outbreaks. The new research agenda must gather information on household and community perspectives about proposals for the use of their land. These perspectives are key to assessing the cost/benefit of a proposed project. Training local professionals in environmental, agricultural, and health science issues, with a particular focus on granting degrees in a new “trans”-discipline linking health and the environment, would be emphasized.
Acting as centers of integrated analysis of infectious disease emergence, incorporating perspectives and expertise from a variety of natural, social, and health sciences. Research activities would range from taxonomy of pathogens and vectors to identifying best practices for influencing changes in human behavior to reduce ecosystem and health risks.
Incorporating a “health impact assessment” as an important cross-sectorial decision-making tool in overall development planning (parallel to an environmental impact assessment), along with the need for doing more research.
Equipping professionals with the ability to recommend policy toward maintaining ecosystem function and promoting sustainable public health for future generations. For example, the link between forest fragmentation and Lyme disease risk could lead to preserving more intact tracts of forest habitat by planning “cluster” housing schemes.
Implementing research and policy programs.
In selecting areas for research and the placement of centers of excellence, it is important to choose geographically representative, highly diverse areas around the world. In addition, research projects should take place in regions or landscapes that have both well characterized and less characterized patterns of infectious disease emergence or transmission for comparison purposes. Local health and environment professionals, who are in the best position to understand local priorities, should make the choices within each region for initial research areas and sites.
Addressing trade-offs among environment, health, and development.
There are some inherent trade-offs when considering land-use change and health. They are ethical values, environmental versus health choices, and disparities in knowledge and economic class. Trade-offs are between short-term benefit and long-term damage. For example, draining swamps may reduce vector-borne disease hazards but also destroy the wetland ecosystem and its inherent services (e.g., water storage, water filtration, biologic productivity, and habitats for fish and wildlife). Research can help decision making by identifying and assessing trade-offs in different land-use-change scenarios. Balancing the diverse needs of people, livestock, wildlife, and the ecosystem will always be a prominent feature.
Conclusions
When considering issues of land use and infectious disease emergence, the public needs to be attentive to entire ecosystems rather than simply their local environs. Although we may not live within a certain environment, its health may indirectly affect our own. For example, intact forests support complex ecosystems and provide essential habitats for species that are specialized to those flora and that may be relevant to our health. If these complex relationships are disrupted, there may be unforeseen impacts on human health, as the above examples clearly demonstrate.
Encouraging initiatives.
Three new initiatives are rising to the challenges presented above. The first initiative, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine (CCM), was formed recently to address these health challenges at the interface of ecology, wildlife health, and public health (Figure 2). At its core, conservation medicine champions the integration of techniques and partnering of scientists from diverse disciplines, particularly veterinary medicine, conservation biology, and public health. Through the consortium, therefore, these experts work with educators, policy makers, and conservation program managers to devise approaches that improve the health of both species and humans simultaneously [more information is available from the CCM website (CCM 2004)].
The second initiative, the new international journal EcoHealth, focuses on the integration of knowledge at the intersection of ecologic and health sciences. The journal provides a gathering place for research and reviews that integrate the diverse knowledge of ecology, health, and sustainability, whether scientific, medical, local, or traditional. The journal will encourage development and innovation in methods and practice that link ecology and health, and it will ensure clear and concise presentation to facilitate practical and policy application [more information is available from the EcoHealth website (EcoHealth 2004)].
The third initiative, the MEA, is an international work program designed to meet the needs of decision makers and the public for scientific information concerning the consequences of ecosystem change for human health and well-being and for options in responding to those changes. This assessment was launched by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in June 2001 and will help to meet the assessment needs of international environmental forums, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species, as well as the needs of other users in the private sector and civil society [more information is available from the Millennium Assessment Working Groups website (Millennium Assessment Working Groups 2004)].
Challenges ahead.
As this working group of researchers continues to work on these topics, we face three challenges. First, strong trans-disciplinary research partnerships need to be forged to approach the research with the degree of creative thinking and comprehensiveness required by the nature of the problems. Second, if the work is to influence policy, the choice of questions and the research must be undertaken collaboratively with the local community and also through discussion with decision makers in government, industry, civil society, and other sectors. Third, investigators must consider how they can integrate their findings into the social, economic, and political dialogue on both the environment and health, globally and locally. As links between land use and health are elucidated, an informed public will more readily use such discoveries to better generate political will for effective change.
Figures and Tables
Figure 1 A systems model of land use change that affects public health. This model shows relationships between drivers of land use change and subsequent levels of environmental change and health consequences. Various levels of investigation and intervention are evident and range from specific risks factors and determinants of population vulnerability to larger institutional and economic activity.Figure 2 The main elements converging under the Consortium for Conservation Medicine. Conservation medicine combines conservation biology, wildlife veterinary medicine, and public health. Adapted from Tabor (2002).
By now, you’ve likely seen many of your friends and family posting about conspiracy theories tied to vaccines, Bill Gates, and New World Order. If you’re anything like me you might be asking the question, “why are so many people off their rocker?”. Today, I’m going to share with you what I’ve learned about why some folks have concerns in these areas. My hope is to genuinely educate you on things that weren’t so obvious to me, that have since given me empathy and understanding for a whole group of people and causes that were otherwise not on my radar.
OVERVIEW
Bill Gates and Tedros, WHO
I’ve come to understand at least 3 major reasons people might have concerns about vaccines:
Health concerns:
Volume of vaccines
Volume of vaccine dosages
Vaccine schedules
Combination Vaccines
Ethical concerns:
Fetal tissue
Vaccine approval rigor
Vaccine trade-off value
Vaccine mandates
Vaccine producers’ lack of financial/legal liability for vaccine injuries
Vaccine as population control
Economic concerns:
Tax dollars fund Vaccine Injury Programs
Big Pharma Profiteering
ANTI-VAXXERS
When most people hear about “anti-vaxxers” they tend to think of crazy people spewing all over the camera with their grotesque pictures of aborted babies, shouting angrily about MCR-5 and vaccine injuries. Because this is what we see, we’ve been dismissive towards the rest of the anti-vaxxer movement, who is a little more…subtle.
There are highly intelligent, well-mannered, respected, professional folks who have legitimate concerns about vaccines. But finding these people is like working through a level 100 Where’s Waldo puzzle. Where are they? And why don’t we hear from them? Two reasons: (1) they don’t want to be associated with the crazy people, and (2) if someone hears that they have any reservations about vaccines whatsoever, they immediately attack them with questions like, “people used to die from polio, do you really want that back, do you?!”. As you can imagine, that’s not a great opener for engaging any reasonably-minded person in a well-respecting debate. Effectually, it’s actually quite difficult to learn about the very legitimate concerns that do exist about vaccines, because the folks who might take the time to help you understand are too apprehensive that you might judge and condemn them.
MY LOVE OF SCIENCE, MATH AND LOGIC
I grew up knowing vaccines are good. I got my vaccines on schedule. I carried around my vaccination card like a well-earned A+ report card. I kept an eye on when certain vaccines were expiring and would promptly go get a new one at the right time.
Since I was four years old, I knew two things: I wanted to build computers and be a doctor. At the age of four, I built my first computer with my dad (and have gone on to build many computers since then). But medicine in particular always had my interest above math. I was fascinated by medicine. In high school, I went through a Health Science Academy for four years,which enabled me to get Pharmacy Tech certified and CNA certified. I learned every medical prefix and suffix in the book (literally), and even spent two years learning Latin to help me better understand medical terminology. To earn my Pharmacy Technician certification, I went through two years of courses in 11th and 12th grade, and was examined by the state of Texas. I had to learn about all classes of drugs, and also vaccines. I went through many internships, at Pharmacies, at a Maxiofacial surgeon, at a retirement care community, and in all wings of the hospital, from ER, to post-op, to NICU, ICU, etc.
I proceeded to go to premed school, and was enthralled by human biology, anatomy, medicine, and the likes. I actually made the study guides in all my classes for my peers. They’d go on to make A’s on every test for which they used my guide. After a year at premed, I actually realized this wasn’t the call God had on my life (which was quite disorienting, considering I had spent the last 5 years dedicated to premed programs, and had spent the last 16 years knowing I would be a doctor).
I pulled out of med school and found my way to Psychology, wherehe . My teachers would give me essay assignments with requirements like “minimum 13 pages and 3 references” and I was the guy who would ask “can I have 20 pages and 12 references?”. Most students were making their periods in sentences bigger as a trick to make it look like their papers were longer: I made my periods smaller to give myself more room to write. One day, I opened literally every paper relevant to my research on the Ebsco research database in a tab on Chrome. I read every one of those research papers.
In my statistics class, our teacher gave us the ability to use an Excel Spreadsheet to solve for the really challenging problems, but I preferred paper and pen, because I knew the answer would be 100% accurate if I worked it out myself and relied on pure math to find the right answer.
I ended up also with a minor in Biblical Studies, with a focus on exegetical Biblical text. I’d spent countless hours reading the Hebrew and Greek origins of words, pouring over the historical context so that I could draw the historical bridge, and would eventually map everything together to illustrate the connectedness of it all.
And today, I lead an engineering team of 35 people distributed in at least 12 countries. I’m the top-level director, responsible for estimating projects from $300k-$2M in size, ranging 3mo to 18mo in duration, and for teams ranging in size from 5-20 people. Our margins are razor thin, so if my projections are off by the slightest, our company could be devastated. Instead, in the last four years we’ve quadrupled revenue, increasing our team size from 15 to 70 people. The growth has been massive. But we’ve stayed profitable and debt free because of our attention to detail, the thoroughness of our research, and the follow through on commitment, of which I’m chiefly responsible.
For the free time I have outside of managing my team, I spend much of my time in spreadsheets creating forecasting models, and also doing research on emerging technology. On average, I’ve learned one new computer language every 3 months the last 6 years (when I had gotten my start in engineering, I had learned 6 languages in just two weeks).
The point I’m trying to make is that I am a research, math and science guy if you’ve ever met one. I trust in facts, not hypotheses; evidence, not narratives; logic, not feelings. If it weren’t for my faith in Jesus Christ, my faith would be wholly in math, science and logic. Thankfully, God had room for me in His family. My love of God, and faith in Him, however, doesn’t change anything about my love and appreciation for math and science. That’s who God made me at the core. I believe in the rigor of research, the reliability of math, and the soundness of logic and reason. Knowing God has simply positioned my trust in Him before human reason, and above reason when in conflict. But if it weren’t for God’s grace over me, you’d probably think I was Spock’s offspring or worse, even his father.
On My knee-jerk reaction was that these people were loonies. I did some research at the time, and was able to verify their claims that some vaccines had aborted baby tissue in them. That made me sick, and certainly made me for the first time ask the question, “what’s in vaccines?”. I had never asked that before. Not once. I just knew they were good. I researched a little more, wrestled with the topic of vaccines, and ended up deciding that when I had kids I’d look more into it with an open mind — but that by and large, most vaccines are still good.
That was a decade ago. The last few months, I began researching vaccines again. This time around, I’ve applied the same level of rigor that I’ve always applied to research, math, science, logic and reason. I’ve spent at least 100 hours in the last 1-2 months, and quite honestly, I’m just now starting to scratch the surface. There’s so much that I don’t yet know, so many sources and references I haven’t stored that I need to go back and save, and so much that I have yet to validate or invalidate.
But, from what I’ve learned so far, I’m convinced thatwe should at minimum be asking questions about vaccines. I’ve written my bonafides above so that you know in full faith and confidence, that I’m likely the most skeptical person you will meet when it comes to changing my opinion, especially on something as central as vaccines, for which in the last 26 years I have accepted as right and true without question. I’m a hardcore “INTJ” personality type: known for being unwilling to change, for always thinking I’m right, and for being out of touch with feeling and emotion. While God has tempered me with grace to love and care for those around me, my affinity for being persuaded by anything less than logic and reason (outside of faith) is exactly zero.
Below, I’ll share a high-level overview about why we should be concerned about some vaccines, and why,we should be engaged with our government to ensure that our kids and grandkids won’t grow up in a world where the government mandates vaccine injections. I’ll keep each of these relatively short and include resources below if you want to dig in to learn more.
A. HEALTH CONCERNS
1. VOLUME OF VACCINES
When I was born (1988), the recommended vaccine schedule included four vaccines:
Diphtheria, tetanus, & acellular pertussis
Inactivated poliovirus
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
Haemophilus influenzae type b
Today, the vaccine schedule has tripled to fifteen vaccines:
Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
Diphtheria, tetanus, & acellular pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type b
Pneumococcal conjugate
Inactivated poliovirus
Influenza (IIV) / Influenza (LAIV)
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
Varicella
Hepatitis A
Tetanus, diphtheria, & acellular pertussis
Human papillomavirus
Meningococcal
Meningococcal B
Pneumococcal polysaccharide
2. VOLUME OF VACCINE DOSAGES
When I was born,the number of vaccine dosages was 15.
The number of vaccine dosages has tripled to 44.
3. VACCINE SCHEDULES
When I was born, the schedule for when to administer vaccines was less aggressive. The CDC at the time did not have an official schedule for when to administer the doses based on age of the baby. That changed in 1995.
Today, the vaccine schedule recommends 27 doses of vaccines prior to the age of 15mo, with 17 of those prior to 6mo old.
4. COMBINATION VACCINES
Some vaccines have been combined in high concentration doses. For example, Measles, Mumps and Rubella each had their own vaccine available. In the 70s-80s, these vaccines were combined into one highly concentrated vaccine, referred to as MMR. Many are concerned about injecting this high concentration of vaccine all at once into small, developing babies. Vaccine producers have taken the individual vaccines off the market and only offer the combination vaccine.
SUMMARY
In my personal research, I’ve seen an overwhelming number of stories of people’s babies who are otherwise healthy, engaged, and developing, but experience immediate seizure and disengagement upon receiving the MMR vaccine, resulting in autism. Similarly, there are an overwhelming number of people who have been paralyzed after receiving the Human papillomavirus vaccine. These are referred to as Vaccine Injuries, and these aren’t the only two vaccines that cause them.It’s challenging for parents with infants to prove that a vaccine caused an injury, because lawyers will often make the case that there’s no way to know that the vaccine caused autism since the baby is so young and still developing. I’ve scoured the web looking at many before and after narratives, with videos and pictures to boot, and there’s ample evidence that there is in fact a sudden and massive change in other-wise happy babies.
If that’s not enough though, given the Human papillomavirus vaccine is administered around 11-12 years old (or even as young as 9), it’s much more challenging for lawyers to make the case that an otherwise healthy 15 year old who became paralyzed after taking the vaccine wasn’t the cause of the vaccine. Here’s what’s most disturbing about the vaccines for HPV: the virus is only transmitted via sex, and especially via anal sex. The CDC recommends administering this vaccine automatically to all women — I should say, “adolescent girls” — between the ages of 11-12, and even as young as 9. Further, the virus is found in most cases to go away on it’s own, it’s rare that it results in the deadly condition of Cervical Cancer. On their page for the HPV Vaccine, the CDC sites that 12,000 women are diagnosedwith Cervical Cancer each year — but HPV isn’t the only cause of Cervical Cancer, it’s one of many.How many cases were a result of HPV? Even still, the number is massively low: 12,000 cases and 4,000 deaths. But, they recommend every young girl in America receive the vaccine — and there are many stories of parents whose daughters contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome within 2 weeks of being vaccinated for HPV specifically with Gardasil. Gardasil happens to be the only vaccine available for HPV. At least three states (Rhode Island, Virginia, and District of Columbia) have passed legislation mandating children be vaccinated with Gardasil by 7th grade. Many more states have put forward legislation.Gardasil is one of the darling vaccines in the Merck Co. inventory, and in 2018 alone generated $3,000,000,000+ ($3B ) in revenue.
There’s such a high number of people who report vaccine injuries, that in 1988, the federal government and CDC stood up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to deal with the mass number of cases reported. The Compensation Program offers payment only with a ‘no fault’ stipulation, as a means to silence people who have experienced vaccine injuries.Since 1988, $4,027,385,399.60 ($4B) has been disbursed to vaccine injury claims and another$216,791,324.93 ($200M) paid to legal fees for the United States Government providing lawyers to defend against these claims on behalf of vaccine producers.
In this post, I’m not going deep into theVaccine Injury data, although it’s quite voluminous. Instead, I thought I’d simply highlight that there’s been a very recent and rapid spike in the volume of vaccines, doses and acceleration of schedules, coupled with massive amount of injury claims being paid out to individuals. That’s enough to make me go, “hmm…”. If you are interested in stories from people who have experienced Vaccine Injury, check out the movie Vaxxed and Vaxxed 2.If it’s all just rubbish, it’ll be a good laugh for you. If it’s not, perhaps you’ll something.
Aborted baby fetal tissue samples from two babies (tissues referred to as MRC-5 and WI-38) are used in the production of at least four widely distributed vaccines (name of the vaccine manufactures who use the aborted fetal tissue referenced next to the vaccine name). Many object morally to using aborted baby tissue in vaccines. Some of these vaccines are mandated, which presents special challenges for those who morally object:
Hepatitis A vaccines [VAQTA/Merck, Havrix/GlaxoSmithKline, and part of Twinrix/GlaxoSmithKline]
Rubella vaccine [MERUVAX II/Merck, part of MMR II/Merck, and ProQuad/Merck]
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine [Varivax/Merck, and part of ProQuad/Merck]
Zoster (shingles) vaccine [Zostavax/Merck]
These are just the vaccines produced through these two widely known strains of aborted fetal tissue. There are many more tissues from other aborted babies that are also used in widely administered vaccines (you can do your own googling on these!).
2. VACCINE APPROVAL RIGOR
Vaccines don’t go through the same rigor of testing that pharmaceutical drugs approved by the FDA go through.Specifically, vaccines don’t necessarily go through placebo studies.This means that when a new vaccine comes out, or if it’s been out for 50 years, scientists refuse to test the efficacy of the vaccine against the natural immunity of individuals’ who do not have the vaccine (nor of the side effect comparisons). Because of this, it is nearly impossible to link vaccine injuries to vaccines, because researchers refuse to test against placebos. So, when a new vaccine comes out, if there’s an increase in autism because of the vaccine, you wouldn’t know that necessarily because everyone would have received the vaccine, so it looks like the entire population just had an uptick in autism (for other nefarious reasons). This makes it nearly impossible to hold accountable any vaccine producer against the side effects and injuries their vaccines produce. It also makes it harder to trust the vaccines.
These scientists cite the reason for their objection to placebo studies as it being “unethical” to not give their wonderful mana-from-heaven vaccine to the children of the world. After all, their vaccine saves lives. So, we should just trust that the vaccine saves lives and not question the integrity of their work. After all, they are scientists. Scientists never make mistakes.
Some have challenged scientists on this notion, in that there are many parents who would be willing to not give a vaccine to their children, because they specifically do not want the vaccine. The objection from scientists in this case is that the parents are pre-disposed to a bias, and they cannot trust the results of the test because the parent will add confirmation bias to the results.
3. VACCINE TRADEOFF VALUE
The diseases that many of the newer vaccines on the vaccine schedule treat are low in number of affected cases and mortality rate.For example, there’s a few vaccines that treat diseases that might affect 50,000 of the population in the United States (of 323M) with less than 200 deaths. Does it really make sense to vaccinate 323M people for something that is this rare? As we see the vaccine schedule growing so large, you have to wonder if at some point if it’s worth the risk of all those chemicals in our body to protect ourselves against infections and diseases for which we have an incredibly low chance of getting, and even lower chance of dying from.
4. VACCINE MANDATES
Vaccines have become increasingly mandated by state and local governments. In most states, a child cannot attend public and many private schools without providing evidence that they have received the minimum required vaccines. In many states, a parent not providing vaccines can be constituted as Medical Neglect meaning that a parent can lose rights to their children and even be fined and serve jail time for choosing to not vaccinate their children.
5. VACCINE PRODUCERS’ LACK OF FINANCIAL/LEGAL LIABILITY FOR VACCINE INJURIES
Earlier, I mentioned theVaccine Injury Compensation Program established in 1988. Interestingly, this program offers 100% protection to Vaccine producers from any lawsuits from vaccine injuries (including mandated vaccines),and instead,holds the United States government liable financially but not criminally for any injury (thus, no one can be held criminally liable for vaccine injuries). I mentioned earlier that this is a “no fault” program, meaning those who file must maintain the explicit understanding and make clear that they do not hold the Vaccine producers at fault for their claim of injury (this is the only way they could be eligible to receive financial recompense — and of course, if a vaccine really did cause autism, it’s highly likely they would be dependent on the financial recompense to help offset the challenge of raising an autistic child).
The logic for absolving vaccine producers from having any culpability whatsoever is that in the 80s, there were so many people filing suits against vaccine companies, that these vaccine producers were getting buried in legal fees and payouts. They couldn’t afford to stay in business, producing more (questionable) vaccines, with all the claims of injuries. The United States decided to bail them out permanently — offering amnesty, hall pass, whatever you want to call it — so that they never have to face the consequence of any of their actions. Margaret Sanger published “My Way To Peace”a pretty dangerous recipe for mistakes. We’ve removed accountability on both book-ends of the process (pre-release-testing and post-administration-audits).
6. VACCINE AS POPULATION CONTROL
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is now the #1 Contributor to the WHO (was second to the United States until Trump pulled back funding this year). In addition, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested $11B in philanthropic efforts, with most of that going towards vaccine production, and a large chunk of that focused on vaccine production in Africa and Southeast Asia.
Massive research has been performed by the WHO on human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) vaccines (informally known as sterilization vaccines). Researchers have discovered hCG presence in vaccines administered to people in developing countries (specifically, on tetanus vaccines). More concerning, women have been found to have been sterilized through the administration of vaccines (like the tetanus vaccine) in those developing countries.
Some researchers and philanthropologists (especially Bill Gates) have theorized that CO2 emmissions from people is one of the most damaging contributors to Climate Change, and have set out on a mission to solve the problem. Most notably, these researchers (led by Bill Gates and the WHO) have deemed Africa and Southeast Asia as the most responsible countries for contributing to overpopulation by 2050 (and thus, climate change), and have committed to reducing the population curve in these countries — specifically through contraceptive “options”.
In 2010, Bill Gates led a TED talk describing the relationship between increased health, vaccines and decreased population. Years later, he clarified his intention in this relationship, describing that he believes when people are healthier they’ll choose to have less kids.
Then, in 2015, Bill Gates hosted a convention in Berlin, Germany with worldwide leaders (funders, academia, regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, vaccine manufacturers, and Ministries of Health from Africa and Asia) focused on increasing vaccine administration in developing countries, specifically Southeast Asia and Africa. The convention was explicitly focused on maternal immunization (MI) against influenza, pertussis, and tetanus. In lay-mens terms, the convention was focused on how to administer influenza, pertussis and tetanus vaccines to pregnant women in Southeast Asia and Africa. The convention cited that the #1 challenge to administering the vaccine to these pregnant women was in fact resistance and objection by those pregnant women. The convention goes on to demonstrate that not enough evidence is yet available to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of the MI program, but after they administer to enough women and collect evidence (hopefully supporting their hypotheses), they will be able to use this evidence to generate greater demand from more individuals in those regions. To offset the challenge of overcoming objection from the pregnant women, the convention leaders asserted that they will need to leverage family members, tribal elders and religious leaders to critically influence community acceptance for the MI program to not just the pregnant women, but the entire community.
This isn’t the first time Bill Gates has heard of this technique of leveraging a woman’s community to propagate acceptance of immunization. Bill Gates’ father, Bill Gates Senior, served on local and national boards for Planned Parenthood leading up to Roe v. Wade. Many attribute his efforts and advocacy within Planned Parenthood as a boon for the pro-choice “victory” out of Roe v. Wade. When asked how he came to be passionate about reproductive issues as a philanthropic effort, Bill Gates references the efforts of his mom and dad, and specifically referenced the work they did in Planned Parenthood leading up to Roe v. Wade. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,wrote a letter in 1939 to Clarence Gambel stating the following,“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal…We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”So the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, 76 years later, takes a pretty similar approach in Africa for the MI program,using tetanus, which has been known to be a a disguised carrier for hCG sterilization.
But this isn’t the only thing concerning about Bill Gates’ ties to Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood a few different times under different names, and even retreated to Germany in the midst of WWII for safe haven from the United States government for her practicing of eugenics on African Americans. Specifically, her goal was to limit population and reproduction of African Americans. The third time she started the organization, it was thus named Planned Parenthood. And her legacy lives today.79% of all Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of African American communities. According to a study by the CDC in 2015, since 1969, Black women have the highest abortion rate of any other race, consisting of 36% of all abortions in the United States (African American population is ~12%). Let me say that another way: 12% of the population is responsible for 36% of all abortions.
In 1932, Margaret Sangerpublished “My Way To Peace”, postulatingtoCongress to “direct and control the population through Birth rates and immigration”.
Three of her main objectives were as follows:
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents,the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
(f) thewhole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.
Margaret Sangerpublished “My Way To Peace”
That Bill Gates derives his philanthropic loins from his father’s service in Planned Parenthood, during which time he helped Planned Parenthood win Roe v Wade, which has effectively resulted in ~62M abortions, 19M of which from African Americans — and that Bill Gates has invested $11B towards producing vaccines in Africa and Southeast Asia for the purpose of population control, and that he would focus on using the tetanus shot as one of three primary vaccines (which has been proven in developing countries to contain hCG sterilization) in specifically African pregnant women — is highly questionable and concerning.
People ask me: “why do you share this kind of knowledge” and I’ll tell you why. If there’s the smallest chance that there exists a man who is intentionally sterilizing women in developing countries against their knowledge and will, I believe we should fight against such an oppressor in prayer and otherwise. I believe that falls in the category of James 1:27, to fight for widows and orphans — to fight for the least of these.
The United States has paid out $4B in vaccine injury claims and $200M in legal fees since 1988 on behalf of vaccine producers. Where does Uncle Sam get his money? Taxpayers, not vaccine producers, pay the price for vaccine injuries.
2. BIG PHARMA PROFITEERING
Meanwhile, vaccine manufactures are on schedule to earn $60,000,000,000 ($60B) in 2020 alone. Since they aren’t bogged down with dealing with pesky lawsuits, they can focus on generating more vaccines to add to the schedule.
Let’s take a quick look at how Coronavirus has affected stocks for seven of the biggest Vaccine producers.
Three of the biggest 10 vaccine producers are Novavax, Inovio, and Vir Biotechnology. Since Coronavirus, these three companies’ stock has skyrocketed:
Wow! If you look closely, you’ll see these companies experience a massive spike in growth around January-March. It’s quite natural that we would see vaccine stock markets increase due to COVID. But what’s interesting is not all vaccine company stock markets experienced this spike. In fact, these three are the outliers. What do these three share in common?They are all backed by Bill Gatesfor a collective $244M.
Here’s what the stocks look like for the #1, #2, #3 and #4 revenue producing vaccine producers:
The common thread we see here is a big dip. None of them expected Coronavirus, they all experienced massive disruption in their business and are now recovering.Why did they experience a dip? Logically: people stopped going to hospitals to get their regular vaccines and sales plummeted overnight.
If you look at the stock for the firms Bill Gates has heavily invested in, you see the inverse: there’s actually a spike. As if they were ready for Coronavirus to hit. Why is this?
Speaking of, Bill Gates in 2015 predicted this pandemic, nearly to the tee: A flu-based pandemic by around 2020 flu-based pandemic, of the weight and gravity of the 1918 Spanish Flu. He’s been leveraging this prediction to convince people of the need for a worldwide vaccine. He’s specifically been at work to ensure vaccine distribution is ready to go in Africa and Southeast Asia. We also see a massive acceleration in his financial investments in vaccine organizations starting in 2015. This overlaps well with the Berlin convention in 2015 where he asserted the biggest challenge with vaccinating pregnant women is their objection to being vaccinated.
Be on the lookout for any research that suggests pregnant women are especially at risk of Coronavirus, it wouldn’t surprise me if the CDC and WHO recommend a pregnancy specific vaccines for Cornavirus in the next year. It wouldn’t surprise me if Bill Gates graciously offers to donate another $10B to getting this vaccine to Africa and Southeast Asia.
He sure is great at predicting the future — and many still believe his intentions are pure. What do you think?
Vaccines wouldn’t be a concern of mine if they weren’t mandatory in the United States and if they weren’t seemingly being used to propitiate sterilization of ethnic groups in developing countries.
I’d like to reiterate one thing in all of this: this is just scratching the surface. The amount of data I’ve combed through, the evidence, hours-and-hours of testimony from individuals — it’s overwhelming. I’ve included only references in here which are either neutral or pro-vaccine. I’ve specifically not included references to data in here that is clearly anti-vaccine. I’ve done this on purpose so that you may look at the data that is skewed in favor of pro-vaccines and make a determination for yourself if you have any concerns based on the best case scenarios.
Personally, in reviewing the data, I’m alarmed by the interconnectedness of what we are seeing. Coupled with the increased censorship from Facebook, the WHO, the CDC and Google, who all appear to be in lock-step, it’s hard to know what to do with all of this information. I’ve often debated internally: “should I just be silent about this?” and “of what value does this provide?”
But, I’m continually convicted of the following nine beliefs, and I cannot shake these nor be silent:
I’m concerned by the harmfulness of many vaccines
I’m concerned by the lack of good science behind testing vaccines
I’m concerned by the lack of accountability beholden to vaccine producers
I’m concerned by any group of people who would attempt to sterilize any person or group of peoples
I’m increasingly concerned by the calls for a worldwide vaccine, especially one that is mandated
I feel morally compelled to share these convictions with others, so they themselves can decide if they want to subject themselves and their families to vaccines
I feel morally compelled to pray often for our government leaders to be surrounded by God-fearing, righteous men and women, and to be removed from the sphere of influence of anyone who does not daily submit themselves before the Lord
I feel civilly compelled to figure out how to create awareness in our communities so that we can elect officials who are committed to tackling these concerns, and also advocate to already elected officials to do something about it; and to not just stop in our own communities, but to change our laws so that we are better able to hold accountable vaccine producers — and keep big money out of influencing what we do with vaccines, and how we do it
I feel morally obligated to figure out what my role is in helping prevent the oppression of widows and orphans in developing countries from rich and powerful men who have clearly stated their objective to reduce population in those developing countries
To be clear, I have no quarrel with anyone who is pro-vaccine. In fact, when produced with upmost ethical standards, it’s quite sensible to me that people would be highly interested in vaccines. However, I also seek to preserve independent medical freedom for individuals to weigh both the science and the testimonies of those who have had vaccines — and to decide what the best course of action is for them and their families. On a personal level, I feel responsible for the safety of my own family.
One indication that the government is not in tune with safe vaccine protocols is that they still maintain a “no fault” policy on vaccines, and refer only to vaccine “allergic reactions” without acknowledging the many diseases, illnesses and deaths they do clearly cause. Despite this, it’s clear to me that there are people out there who think it best for the government to decide what is safest — that we as individuals should not maintain that freedom. I am unequivocally against these people and will oppose them at every measure
Kakistocracy: noun, government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.
The old saying goes that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. So you might think that during a 50-year political career, the odds would dictate that Joe Biden would, once in a blue moon, make a correct decision — just based on the odds. But you’d be mistaken. Biden has stumbled and bumbled from one disastrous decision to the next. Disastrous, that is, for America. Biden himself has prospered handsomely in spite of his glaring incompetence and corruption.
Biden’s long Senate career was based on being the credit card companies’ man in Washington. While crowing endlessly about the working class being “his people,” Biden sponsored bills allowing bank issuers to charge egregious interest rates and to make it harder for working men to escape the credit trap through bankruptcy.
When Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, he turned the confirmation of Clarence Thomas into a political smear campaign that descended into a degenerate three-ring circus. In his first campaign for president, he failed to garner a single percentage point before having to withdraw when confronted with his past lies and blatant plagiarism. He literally stole a speech detailing a British politician’s life story. He ran again in 2008 but again failed to reach even one percent of the vote.
When Barack Obama took him off the primary trash heap to make him vice president, Biden first made a hash out of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasting hundreds of billions on boondoggles and giveaways to Democrat cronies. Little of the recovery billions was spent on anything useful to America. Biden went on to manage our relations with China and Ukraine, pocketing untold millions for himself and his family by selling out America’s security interests.
By the time he ran for president again in 2020 he was a spent husk of his former corrupt and incompetent self, delivering asinine performances in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. When the Democrat establishment propped him up to once again stop Bernie Sanders, Biden was set up for the strangest presidential campaign in modern history. While Donald Trump barnstormed the nation with packed, enthusiastic rallies, Biden cowered in his basement, occasionally venturing out to speak with a few dozen voters sitting in circles drawn on the floor.
For his vice presidential pick, he chose — if you can believe it — an even more buffoonish candidate than himself.
Had it not been for Mark Zuckerberg buying and staffing government election offices in swing states, and the media and Big Tech’s censorship of the Biden family’s corruption, Biden would now be enjoying his dotage in Delaware, creeping on unsuspecting children with yarns of Corn Pop and South African arrests.
Instead, the man with one of the most astonishing records of abject failure in Washington was installed in the White House, and he has remained true to form. As one of a hundred senators and then as vice president, there was a limit to how much damage he could do. But as president, the shackles have been removed.
His first agenda item was to throttle our oil and gas sector, offshoring tens of thousands of good paying jobs to Russia and the Middle East — along with our energy independence. He threw open our southern border and encouraged virtually unlimited illegal immigration — during a global pandemic.
Biden’s “defund the police” rhetoric delivered us soaring violent crime in Democrat-run cities, while he sicced federal law enforcement on parents who object too strenuously to their children being indoctrinated with anti-White racism and LGBTQIA+ ideology.
It can truly be said that as president, Biden’s record of failure remains unblemished.
But now comes what may be the capstone on Biden’s long history of buffoonery and corruption. In Ukraine, we have an armed conflict that threatens to plunge the world into an economic depression and raises the specter of nuclear war. Not only did Biden set the stage for this calamity when, as vice president, he was in charge of Ukraine policy and led Kiev to believe that NATO membership was in Ukraine’s future, but on the eve of the Russian invasion, he refused to admit that it was not. Then Biden all but admitted to Vladimir Putin — on live TV, no less — that NATO would not defend Ukraine if Russia chose to invade.
In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion, Biden and his administration have crafted sanctions that seem almost designed to boomerang on America’s and Europe’s fragile post-pandemic economies, while forcing Russia into a deeper alliance with China.
With the U.S. over $31 trillion in debt, Biden seems totally oblivious to the perilous position of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the consequences should that privileged position end.
Economists predict that food and gasoline will cost the average U.S. household an additional $3,000 this year, and inflation threatens to push millions of lower-middle income-earners into abject poverty.
And bumbling, corrupt Joe Biden isn’t yet halfway through his first — and please God, last — term.
Please note that a similar production already occurred in 1918 as a test run called the Spanish Influenza Epidemic. At the time, it was estimated that twenty (20) million people died of the Spanish Flu, most of them in Europe, and most of them already suffering from starvation.
In the Olympics 1980’s, interest was mysteriously revived in the Spanish Flu, and the numbers were inflated to (50) fifty million deaths, and at the same time, Dr. Anthony Fauci published papers saying that the cause of all these deaths was not any form of influenza, but was a result of bacterial pneumonia— most likely caused by people wearing ineffective, but dirty and damp cloth masks. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic
Now, though nobody appears to know why, the number of deaths from the Spanish Flu, which wasn’t influenza-caused according to the Great Fauci’s own research, has been inflated to (80) million deaths. Other doctors have paired the symptoms recorded during the Spanish Flu with the then-new availability of Bayer Aspirin which was made very widely available and routinely overdosed, which then caused bleeding from the internal organs and mucous membranes, mirroring the symptoms of hemorrhagic fever. Just like other researchers have paired the symptoms and appearance of polio with the appearance of oil-based agricultural pesticides. Miraculously, when these same water-resistant pesticides which are known to cause nerve damage and paralysis were removed from the market, polio also disappeared — purportedly as a result of the polio vaccine. Or not. Just a year prior to the Spanish Flu, Woodrow Wilson, one of the prime architects of all this preposterous fraud, called together the major newspaper owners in this country and formed what he called The Committee on Public Information, (CPI), to spew war propaganda 24/7.
Dr Anthony Fauci Sporting His Mask
This new government agency also conveniently spewed disinformation about German Americans and Spanish Flu; then as now, there was evidence that the Spanish Flu was given to American Servicemen as innoculations that took place in Kansas, and then spread overseas during the mop-up phase of World War I to decimate both the starving French and German populations— in an apparent attempt to further weaken both nations. This resembles the story we heard at the beginning of all this current madness — that American Servicemen participating in the World Military Games in Wuhan, China, were injected with “vaccines” provided by Fort Detrick, and used as vectors to spread the “Wuhan Disease”—- only it wasn’t the Wuhan Disease. It was, technically, the Fort Detrick Disease.
Additional facts related to Anthony Fauci’s involvement and the use of the pre- prepped and already patented parent viruses (to guarantee that everyone got their share of the profits from this scheme) will be forthcoming in the days to come, and will rip the covers off the coffins. This is not as outrageous as it might seem, when you consider that decades before all this, the British Territorial U.S. Army had distributed blankets purposefully infected with Smallpox to American Indians trapped on Reservations, and Lord Pirbright had similarly used Dutch Prisoners of War as the victims of heinous vaccination experiments at the world’s first-ever concentration camps employed during the Boer War in Africa decades prior to the Spanish Flu.
The theory seems to be —kill as many weakened members of the herd as possible, so that the remainder will not be burdened with them, and so that their assets can be claimed as abandoned property by the succeeding puppet governments in support of the occupation forces. Ever wondered how the occupation of Europe was funded after WWI and WWII? Those of us skeptical of the honesty of British sources (because in our experience, Brits are at the bottom of every dogpile) have even conjectured that this “kill the weak” policy resulted in mass genocide of concentration camp prisoners — not by their starving German and Polish guards, but by their Liberators, who had the ammunition, equipment, means, and opportunity to create all those mass graves and blame the Nazis for it. And here, right on time, the results are starting to be tabulated, with soaring new death and disability numbers coming from Europe’s Vaccine Adverse Reaction database showing over 3.5 million vaccine injuries and going on 40,000 deaths: https://www.technocracy.news/mrna-deaths-and-injuries-are-soaring-in-europe/https://www.technocracy.news/mrna-deaths-and-injuries-are-soaring-in-europe/ Oh, and do you all remember when I told you that the insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers would blame the victims? They are refusing to pay insurance claims for people who were vaccinated. Lookee here: https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/02/08/life-insurance-company-refuses-to-pay- out-life-insurance-policy-because-death-was-from-experimental-covid-19-vaccine/
And reports are pouring in that Big Oil and Big Defense Contractors are already having their “Human Resource” departments comb through the personnel records to identify those who received these experimental shots — and plan to replace them “within three to five years”. Remember Lord Pirbright, mentioned above, a Rothschild toady who committed genocide and created the first-ever concentration camps and forced “medical” experiments during the Boer War? Well, fellas, guess what? The Pirbright Institute named after this Ghoul also had a hand in the current mess. Yes, they funded research that resulted in patents directly related to this “outbreak” for their own financial benefit and for the benefit of their sister organization, the Wellcome Trust. And, then, they passed off the hot potato (the one with a crown) to their American Cousins, who further developed and patented coronavirus strains at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (thanks to more “philanthropic” funding) which all ended up at Fort Detrick and the NIH and resulted in still more patents benefiting the Vermin ….and, finally, together with over 3 million taxpayer dollars in research funding provided by Dr. Anthony Fauci— found its way to Wuhan, China, too. Now, did this virulent “enhanced” germ escape from the lab in Wuhan, or was it delivered to Wuhan by our own servicemen who had been unknowingly injected with it? Probably both means were used, and all to the same ends: trying to make it look like the Chinese were to blame for the pandemic and all the economic upheaval and losses created by this opportunistic furor.
Once again, if you dig deep enough, you find Brits…. monotonously, always, front- and-center, at the bottom of every dogpile. One should also brace for the Chinese to nationalize all those investments made by western companies in China since 1971 and for China to continue to withdraw for a time into its borders, even as it strives to build new trade relationships with new partners in South America and Australia and Africa and India and Russia. Remember what I told you about how our own Western Parasites have been in the process of killing their host (America) and moving on to greener pastures in China for the past fifty years, including an obvious intention to use the “million man surplus” army they created in China with their “one child” policy, to replace their cheap American mercenaries with even cheaper Chinese throw-aways? The Chinese read the tea leaves. It means that they are stuck with the investment costs of 70 million new housing units, and the only way they can make up the deficit is by nationalizing western investment enterprises —or spending the gold they have been at such pains to accumulate. Go figure what you would do, in their shoes? Let’s see, these heinous abuses of people started with the Brits (British Territorial U.S. Smallpox blankets and Lord Pirbright and Boer War experiments and concentration camps) and continued with the Brits (Pirbright Institute and Wellcome Trust) and then continued with British Sympathizers (Harvard’s Charles Lieber and the Fat Man from Chapel Hill) and then onward to British Territorial operatives at Fort Detrick. All in succession, all neatly documented through the Patent Offices and incorporation records for the better part of a hundred years — and most of it all connected by and through one organization operating in both Great Britain and America: The Pilgrims Society, and a long list of prominent Eugenicists.
So, you see, we have been to this rodeo before, and it is a uniquely British style rodeo, where the victims are blamed, and the today elitist scumbags are rewarded, and the weak — especially the young and the old of the “herd” are preyed upon by cowards wearing white coats and wielding needles.
See this article and over 3400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
66% of self-defined “swing” voters in competitive districts believe that “Democrats in Congress have taken things too far in their pandemic response.”.
👆This is exactly why Democrats are suddenly lifting restrictions👆
White and Hispanic voters were in equal agreement.
80% of these same swing voters believe that “Democrats in Congress support defunding the police and taking more cops off of the street.”
78% of these swing voters believe that “Democrats in Congress have created a border crisis that allows illegal immigrants to enter the country without repercussions and grants them tax-payer funded benefits once here.”
61% of these swing district voters believe that “Democrats in Congress are spending money out of control,”
and
“Democrats are teaching kids as young as five Critical Race Theory, which teaches that America is a racist country and that white people are racist.”
👉The poll was conducted from mid-January to early February, had approximately 1,000 respondents and a 3.1% margin of error.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sign the American Rescue Plan Act after the House voted on the final revised legislation of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief plan, at the U.S. Capitol on March 10, 2021, in Washington, D.C. OLIVIER DOULIERY, Contributor / AFP via Getty Images
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is concerned that Republican attacks on the Democrats’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic have “alarming credibility,” according to a slide deck obtained by SFGATE.
The DCCC, which is the main campaign arm for House Democrats and is currently chaired by New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, worked with outside consulting groups to conduct an online poll of voters in the 60 most competitive House districts for the upcoming 2022 midterms. The poll was conducted from mid-January to early February, had approximately 1,000 respondents and a 3.1% margin of error.
Findings from the poll were presented to DCCC officials Thursday morning. One slide in the presentation, which was shared with SFGATE by someone who attended the presentation and was granted anonymity in accordance with Hearst’s ethics policy, states, “Many of the Republican attacks tested have alarming credibility,” including Republican attacks on COVID-19 policy. (The presentation does not clarify what it means by “credibility.”)
The poll found that that 57% of voters in competitive congressional districts agree with the statement, “Democrats in Congress have taken things too far in their pandemic response,” and 66% of self-defined “swing” voters in competitive districts agree with that statement. White and Hispanic voters in competitive districts were equally as likely to agree (59%), while Black voters (42%) and Asian voters (46%) disagreed with the statement. The poll also did not define what “taken things too far” means.
The DCCC found that critiques of COVID-19 restrictions were slightly less potent than other issues. In swing districts, 64% of voters agreed with the statement that “Democrats in Congress support defunding the police and taking more cops off of the street.” The internal poll found that 80% of self-defined swing voters in competitive districts agreed with the same statement. Politico previously reported on the DCCC warning about the effectiveness of what they refer to as conservative “culture war attacks.”
Sixty-two percent of voters in contested districts agreed with the statement, “Democrats in Congress have created a border crisis that allows illegal immigrants to enter the country without repercussions and grants them tax-payer funded benefits once here.” Seventy-eight percent of swing voters in those districts agreed.
Sixty-one percent of swing district voters agreed with the statements, “Democrats in Congress are spending money out of control,” and, “Democrats are teaching kids as young as five Critical Race Theory, which teaches that America is a racist country and that white people are racist.” And 59% agreed with the statement, “Democrats are too focused on pursuing an agenda that divides us and judging those who don’t see things their way.”
The slide deck provides a snapshot into some of Democrats’ strategies as their outlook for the 2022 midterms growsincreasinglygrim.
The DCCC presentation also contained a slide showing that the top two concerns of voters in competitive districts are inflation and health care, with the COVID-19 pandemic coming in third. Medicare/social security and climate change rounded out the top five. At the bottom of the list were voting rights, taxes and racial justice/equality.
The Trailblazing Patriot 