Health & Fitness

The video above,¹ featuring cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, is packed with sound logic, data and action steps that have the potential to turn the pandemic around — if only more people would listen.

Recorded at the Andrews University Village Church in Berrien Springs, Michigan, August 20, 2021, this presentation deserves to be heard, and I urge you to listen to it in its entirety. It will make you question why a key aspect of care — early treatment — has been missing from the pandemic.

McCullough, editor of two medical journals who has published 650 peer-reviewed papers, said this has been the first time in his career when he saw medical providers not offering early treatment for a disease.

Early COVID Treatment Saves Lives

The standard of care for COVID-19 has been to withhold treatment until a person is sick enough to be hospitalized. It typically takes two to three weeks for someone with COVID-19 to get sick enough to be hospitalized, and during that time early treatment can be lifesaving.

The rationale was that there have been no large, randomized trials conducted to know which treatments are safe and effective, but as McCullough said, "We can't wait for large randomized trials … Something got in the minds of doctors and nurses and everyone to not treat COVID-19. I couldn't stand it." He and colleagues worked feverishly to figure out a treatment — why didn't national health organizations do so also?

"Our government and other governments, and the entire world, has not lifted a finger to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death anywhere," McCullough said, pointing out the irony: "If there was a kid with asthma, would we let the kid wheeze and choke for two weeks before the kid has to go to the hospital? No, we give the child medications. We don't have randomized trials for every single thing that we do."²

McCullough and colleagues realized that there are three major phases to COVID-19. It starts with virus replication, which then triggers inflammation, or a cytokine storm. This, in turn, leads to blood clotting. If enough micro blood clots form in the lungs, a person can't get enough oxygen and dies. It's a complex process, and no single drug is going to work to treat it, which is why McCullough uses a combination of drugs, as is done to treat HIV, staph and other infections.

Only about 6% of doctors' decisions in cardiology are based on randomized trials. "Medicine is an art and a science, it takes judgment. What was happening is, I think out of global fear, no judgement was happening," McCullough said,³ referring to doctors' refusal to treat COVID-19 patients early on in the disease process.

Doctors Threatened for Treating COVID-19

Around the world, the unthinkable is happening: Doctors are being threatened with loss of their license or even prison for trying to help their patients. French doctor Didier Raoult suggested, early on, putting up a tent to try to treat covid-19 patients. He was put on house arrest. He has promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which initially was available over the counter — until France made it prescription only.⁴

In Australia, if a doctor attempts to treat a COVID-19 patient with HCQ, they could be put in prison. "Since when does a doctor get put in prison to try to help a patient with a simple generic drug?" McCullough said. In South Africa, he added, a doctor was put in prison for prescribing ivermectin.

In August 2020, McCullough's landmark paper "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection" was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.⁵

The follow-up paper is titled "Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)" and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.⁶ It became the basis for the home treatment guide.

While some physician organizations have stepped up and are treating COVID-19 patients, "The ivory tower today still is not treating patients. The party line in my health system is, do not treat a COVID-19 patient as an outpatient. Wait for them to get sick enough to be admitted. Because my health system … follows the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control, period."

Conditioned to Wait for an Injection

With no hope of early treatment, McCullough believes that most people became conditioned to wait for an injection. "We became conditioned, after about May or so, to wear a mask, wait in isolation and be saved by the vaccine. And wait for the vaccine. And all we could hear about is the vaccine."

The injections were developed, but they're different than any prior vaccines and have been losing effectiveness while causing an unacceptable number of serious injuries and deaths. For comparison, in 1976, a fast-tracked injection program against swine flu was halted after an estimated 25 to 32 deaths.⁷

According to McCullough in the video, if a new drug comes on the market and five deaths occur, the standard is to issue a black box warning stating the medication may cause death. With 50 deaths, the product is pulled from the market, he says. Now consider this: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database showed that — for all vaccines combined before 2020 — there were about 158 total deaths reported per year.

By January 22, 2021, there were already 182 deaths reported for COVID-19 injections, with just 27.1 million people vaccinated. This was more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program, McCullough said.

"We've already crossed the line of concern January 22. And if there was a data safety monitoring board — I know, because I do this work — we would have had an emergency meeting and said, wait a minute, people are dying after the vaccine. We've got to figure out why."⁸

It's standard to have an external critical event committee, an external data safety monitoring board and a human ethics committee for large clinical trials — such as the mass COVID-19 injection program, but these were not put into place.

"This is something we've never seen in human medicine — a new product introduced and just going full-steam ahead with no check on why people are dying after the vaccine," McCullough said. On two occasions, the CDC and FDA — in March and in June — reviewed the data and said none of the deaths are related to the vaccines. "I think this is malfeasance," he stated.

Fast-forward to July 30, 2021, and VAERS data showed 12,366 Americans have died after a COVID0-19 injection.⁹ In an analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from VAERS, researchers found that 86% of the time, nothing else could have caused the death, and it appears the vaccine was the cause.¹⁰

The Spike Protein Is Dangerous

Your body recognizes the spike protein in COVID-19 jabs as foreign, so it begins to manufacture antibodies to protect you against COVID-19, or so the theory goes. But there's a problem. The spike protein itself is dangerous and known to circulate in your body at least for weeks and more likely months¹¹ — perhaps much longer — after the COVID jab.

In your cells, the spike protein damages blood vessels and can lead to the development of blood clots.¹² It can go into your brain, adrenal glands, ovaries, heart, skeletal muscles and nerves, causing inflammation, scarring and damage in organs over time. McCullough also believes that the spike protein is present in donated blood, and they've notified the Red Cross and the American Association of Blood Banking.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) platforms have been under study for years, in most cases being designed to replace a defective gene, which could potentially be used for cancer or heart failure treatment, for example.

In November 2020, however, Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, announced that their mRNA-based injection was "more than 90% effective" in a Phase 3 trial.¹³ This does not mean that 90% of people who get injected will be protected from COVID-19, as it's based on relative risk reduction (RRR).

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the jab is less than 1%. "Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the jab, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a jab, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs," researchers wrote in The Lancet Microbe in April 2021.¹⁴

McCullough believes the mass injection campaign is an incredible violation of human ethics, in part because no one should be pressured, coerced or threatened into using an investigational product.

No attempts have been made to present or mitigate risks to the public, such as giving it only to people who really need it — not to low risk groups like children and young people and those who are naturally immune to COVID-19 due to prior infection. "I think this is the most disturbing thing," he said.

The Injections Don't Stop COVID-19, Can Be Deadly

The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) posted online July 30, 2021, details an outbreak of COVID-19 that occurred in Barnstable County, Massachusetts — 74% of the cases occurred in fully vaccinated people.¹⁵

Indiscriminate vaccination is driving mutations, as the virus is mutating wildly to evade the injections. Their effectiveness, too, is rapidly waning. A study published in medRxiv, using data from the Mayo Clinic Health System, revealed that during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence, Moderna's injection was 76% effective while Pfizer's effectiveness was only 42%.¹⁶

A little-known fact is that Moderna's jab has three times the dose of Pfizer's, but, curiously, health officials aren't even discussing this or giving the public updates on which of the three injections work "best." The narrative is simple and straightforward — get an injection, any injection.

Yet, as McCullough noted, the virus has mutated, and the vaccines aren't working the way health officials had hoped: "The vaccines don't stop COVID-19, at least not completely, and they're not a shield against mortality."¹⁷

Similar to VAERS, the U.K. maintains a "Yellow Card" reporting site to report adverse effects to vaccines and medications.¹⁸

Tess Lawrie, whose company The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy has worked with the World Health Organization, analyzed U.K. Yellow Card data and concluded that there's more than enough evidence to pull the injections from the market because they're not safe for human use. The report stated:¹⁹

"It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)."

Early Treatment Is Crucial

McCullough is trying to get the word out about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19. Early ambulatory therapy with a sequenced-multidrug regimen is supported by available sources of evidence and has a positive benefit-to-risk profile to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death.

At 53:40 in the video, you can view McCullough's early treatment regimen, which initially includes a nutraceutical bundle. While you're recovering at home, open your windows and get plenty of fresh air and ventilation in your home.

If symptoms persist or worsen, he recommends calling your doctor and demanding monoclonal antibody therapy. The treatment progresses to include anti-infectives like HCQ or ivermectin, antibiotics, steroids and blood thinners.

If your doctor refuses to treat COVID-19 in the early stages, find a new one and/or visit a telemedicine clinic that will help, as "the prehospital phase is the time of therapeutic opportunity."

McCullough is among a growing number of experts who believe COVID-19 injections are making the pandemic worse. They "have an unfavorable safety profile and are not clinically effective, thus they cannot be generally supported in clinical practice at this time."

Logically, this is clear, but McCullough believes we're dealing with a mass psychosis that is preventing people from seeing the light. "The whole world is in a trance," he said, adding:²⁰

"Things are getting disturbingly out of control and it's in the context of the virus. It is clear … we are in a very special time in the history of mankind. Whatever is going on, it is the entire world … every human being in the world. It appears to have a program.

The program … is happening to promote as much fear, isolation, suffering, hospitalization and death in order to get a needle in every arm, at all costs. That is what's going on, and no one in this room can disagree."

from Articles https://ift.tt/3hLGzJX
via IFTTT

In July 2020, Facebook announced they would add labels to posts from politicians “to protect the election and promote healthy civic engagement.”¹ The labels were supposed to identify content Facebook thought was inflammatory, misinformation or lies, without removing the post.

Why Facebook felt they should “moderate” free speech that was not incendiary or promoted violence is a question for another time. According to left-leaning Media Matters for America,² while the media giant continues to use labels on posts, a study of Trump's posts found that those that were labeled as possible misinformation had significantly more interactions than those that were not labeled.

In other words, the labels appeared to engage more readers. Facebook began testing a new label in July 2021. These labels don’t just identify potential “misinformation,” but go even further to prompt readers — asking if their friends are becoming extremists.³ Historically, extreme ideas have proven to advance society or drag it back into the Dark Ages. Consider:

• Book burning by the Nazis to ensure the next generation did not have access to thoughts contrary to Hitler⁴
• The idea that humans can fly, leading to the Wright brothers inventing the airplane
• That electricity could be harnessed, with visionaries like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison working to find ways to have light in the dark
• That the medical establishment didn’t entertain the idea of handwashing to stop the spread of disease until 20 years of data showed the practice lowered rates of infection⁵

The thread that runs through these extreme ideas is that censorship influences the way society thinks and therefore changes the outcome. Had the German people been allowed to think for themselves, an entire country may not have been swayed by the propaganda of one man. If the medical community were open to the idea that their behavior was killing people, they may have saved thousands.

Of course, there are extreme ideas that should not be entertained. People will never be able to fly without assistance or walk into fire without protection. Yet, without censorship, these ideas die a natural death. It’s only through debate and sharing information that the truth wins out. And the truth is the only foundation on which society can realistically and confidently continue.

Facebook Labels Gardeners as Possible Extremists

CNN reported that Facebook prompts are being shown to some individuals, cautioning them that they may know someone who is becoming an extremist. Other prompts are letting people know they've been exposed to extremist content. This is part of Facebook's Redirect Initiative.⁶ Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone told CNN:⁷

"This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.”

In the past, Facebook has been criticized for not acting on content that encourages people toward violence. Yet, these warnings are also attached to posts sharing information about seemingly innocuous subjects, like buying food. According to CNET:⁸

“One of the alerts, shared on Twitter, asks: ‘Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.’

Another alert reads: ‘Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others.’”

As an image saved on archive.is from Reddit shows,⁹ Facebook is labeling those selling home-grown beef as “too prepared.” Compare the extremist views of preparedness to the Forbes¹⁰ report August 17, 2021, that the Taliban would have control of the Afghan social media accounts.

However, it doesn’t stop there. Twitter posts are reporting screenshots of canning and gardening groups that are also being asked, “Are you concerned that someone you know is too prepared? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.”

In other words, Facebook is labeling people who are preparing their food supply as potential extremists, but in August 2021, the social giant was fine with extremist groups like the Taliban taking over Afghan social media accounts.¹¹ Twenty-four hours later, though, Reuters¹² reported Facebook had a ban on the Taliban posting on the social media platform. According to vice president of content policy Monika Bickert:¹³

“They will not be allowed while they are prescribed by the U.S. law and even if they were not prescribed by U.S. law, we would have to do a policy analysis on whether or not they nevertheless violate our dangerous organizations policy.”

Bickert is referring to the fact that the U.S. has soft-pedaled their stance on the group as they are not on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.¹⁴ Since the U.S. has not classified them as terrorists, they can enter negotiations¹⁵ with a group whose actions historically have been less than trustworthy.^16,17,18

Facebook’s definition of extremist ideas apparently conforms to the ideologies of the World Economic Forum (WEF), of which Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, is a member.¹⁹

For example, while some consider a guaranteed basic income paid by the government to all citizens as radical and dystopian, according to a charismatic presentation Zuckerberg made during a commencement speech at Harvard,²⁰ moving the economic platform of the world to universal basic income is not an extremist move.

Instead, it’s something to be explored and tested. As reported by the WEF, Zuckerberg explained that “too few people had the opportunity to try out new ideas — like building his world-conquering platform.”²¹ This is in line with the WEF’s mission to reinvent the future²² by resetting the global economic platform.²³

Facebook Activities Called to Question in Early 2019

In late 2018, PBS’s “Frontline” released a two-part film called “The Facebook Dilemma,”^24,25 in which James Jacoby investigated the influence the social media giant had over the democracy of nations, and the lack of privacy parameters that allowed for tens of millions of users’ data to be siphoned and used to influence U.S. elections.

During 2019 Bloomberg²⁶ reported Facebook was transcribing bits of audio they had recorded from users’ phones. This explained how many were seeing targeted ads after just speaking about a product or service out loud. Further research revealed even more disturbingly, Android apps were taking screen shots of your smartphone and sending the information to third parties.²⁷

According to The Guardian,²⁸ in 2018 Facebook had 40 journalists who worked as fact checkers located across the globe. They were split in their opinion about their fact-checking relationship with Facebook. The Guardian quoted one who said:²⁹

“Why should we trust Facebook when it’s pushing the same rumors that its own fact checkers are calling fake news? It’s worth asking how do they treat stories about George Soros on the platform knowing they specifically pay people to try to link political enemies to him? Working with Facebook makes us look bad.”

Some journalists spoke with a reporter from The Guardian, who said they told him,³⁰ “Facebook’s hiring of a PR firm that used an antisemitic narrative to discredit critics — fueling the same kind of propaganda fact checkers regularly debunk — should be a deal-breaker.”

The allegations into Facebook's PR activities came after the European Parliament called for a privacy audit when it was revealed that Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica to misuse 87 million users’ data to influence election results.³¹ The breach cost Facebook a mere $643,000 for the role it played, which they paid to the U.K.'s Information Commissioner's office.

Facebook's reported revenue for the first quarter in 2021 was $26.17 billion, up 48%, due in part from higher-priced advertising.³² Although the fine was a drop in the bucket when compared against Facebook's revenue, it was the maximum possible penalty that could be imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998. Under the new laws passed in 2018, the maximum fine could have been $22 million.³³

The reporter from The Guardian wrote that one of the fact checkers, Brooke Binkowski, shared how Facebook influenced their work, sometimes to protect their advertisers, writing:³⁴

“... it appeared that Facebook was pushing reporters to prioritize debunking misinformation that affected Facebook advertisers, which she thought crossed a line: 'You’re not doing journalism any more. You’re doing propaganda.'”

This is inline with current activities, since extremist content that shares preparedness, self-reliance, and evidence-based data about viral spread, masking or shot programs may have an impact on the push toward the “Great Reset.”

Facebook's Prepandemic Campaign Against Vaccine Information

Facebook's campaign against people sharing information about vaccination programs had grown in strength even before the COVID-19 genetic therapy shot program. As I reported in early 2019, it was likely driven to protect the interests of their pharmaceutical advertisers.^35,36,37

While many believe vaccination programs are not lucrative, consider Pfizer's Prevnar 13 vaccine, which is supposed to protect against common strains of pneumonia and made three times more money than Viagra in 2015.³⁸

The rising profits from Prevnar 13 in 2015 were thanks to the U.S. government’s recommendation to start using it in adults over 65, and not just in children.³⁹ As noted in the Financial Times,⁴⁰ “… the success of Prevnar shows [vaccines] can be as lucrative as any drug.” So, if you have forums on Facebook sharing true experiences about vaccine side effects, you can see why Pfizer wouldn’t want those comments left there.

When you have a profitable business, you want to promote sustained growth. This means nurturing and protecting your products and services. That's normal in the world of business. What is not normal is enlisting the government to mandate the use of your product while simultaneously preventing sharing bad reviews that impact sales or force you to improve the safety or effectiveness of the product.

So, what was happening in the vaccine industry before 2020 has continued during the pandemic. The push to censor negative press about vaccines on Facebook has been outright shocking. The justification is that “misinformation” prevents people from making sound medical decisions.

It's the same justification being used by Facebook to label any information about the COVID vaccine⁴¹ as false or cautions people planting their own gardens against “extremist thoughts,” while offering “confidential support.”⁴²

Government Asking Social Media to Ban Research

Christina Parks, Ph.D., has her degree in cellular and molecular biology. In this short video she testifies before the Michigan House on Bill 4471, which seeks to prohibit vaccinations as a condition of employment in Michigan. You likely have read or heard the information she shares about COVID, flu and DTap vaccines if you’ve been reading my newsletter.

Yet, the science she's quoting is the very information that Facebook, and the U.S. government would like to ban from social media sites. To manipulate and influence your behavior, it is essential that you do not understand the science behind viral pathogens and the vaccines that hope to control those infections — and that means stopping you from learning scientific truths by any means possible.

July 16, 2021, during a White House briefing⁴³ press secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the Biden Administration is alerting social media companies to posts and accounts that the White House believes is peddling “misinformation” about COVID injections. This is illegal and a violation of First Amendment rights. During the briefing she cited the “Disinformation Dozen” report released by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).^44,45

The report claims that 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter comes from 12 individuals, including me. After this “disinformation” report was virally spread, the truth was revealed in an August 18, 2021, report from Bickert at Facebook, setting the record straight, and in the process demolished the CCDH’s claims. The report revealed:⁴⁶

“In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.”

As the image on Reddit⁴⁷ aptly demonstrates, Facebook now promotes the idea that growing food and buying food from farmers may make you “too prepared.” They will warn your friends they have been exposed to extremist ideas and can receive confidential support to ensure they don’t follow suit.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2VPSH4W
via IFTTT

This article was previously published April 2, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

Tech billionaire Bill Gates, co-founder and former CEO of Microsoft, may seem a strange fit for the role of America’s top farmer. But he’s been quietly amassing massive tracts of U.S. land under the cover of investment firm Cascade Investment LLC, and now owns a minimum of 242,000 acres of U.S. farmland.¹

The finding was outed by Eric O’Keefe’s magazine, “The Land Report,” which puts out a list of the 100 biggest landowners in the U.S. each year. It was a 2020 purchase of 14,500 “prime” acres in Washington state that first caught O’Keefe’s attention, as he calls any sale of more than 1,000 acres “blue moon events.”

When he dug deeper, the purchaser of the 14,500 acres — in the heart of some of the most expensive acreage in America — was recorded as a small Louisiana company. “That immediately set off alarm bells,” O’Keefe told the New York Post.² It turned out the company was acting on behalf of Cascade Investment for Bill Gates, and he owns land not only in Washington but also in Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, California and multiple other states.

“Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, has an alter ego,” O’Keefe wrote. “Farmer Bill, the guy who owns more farmland than anyone else in America.”³ Clearly Gates has a big vision for all that land, but unfortunately it doesn’t involve organic, biodynamic or regenerative farming methods, which are needed to heal ecosystems and produce truly sustainable, nourishing food for future generations.

Instead, the acreage seems earmarked for even more genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy crops — the base foods for what will become an increasingly synthetic, ultraprocessed food supply.

Gates and Fake Meat Bigwigs Aim for Industrialized Farming

Imitation meat company Impossible Foods was co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates,⁴ and Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).⁵

The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.⁶ In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.⁷

In the U.S., consumers are increasingly seeking out wholesome, real, minimally processed food. Fake meat like the Impossible Burger is the opposite — a highly processed fake food, but one that’s disguised as something good for you and the environment.

Where in nature can you find ingredients like genetically engineered yeast, soy protein concentrate, modified food starch and soy protein isolate? The answer is nowhere, and therein lies a key part of the problem.

However, Gates, along with Pat Brown, founder of Impossible Foods, believes that the “winning strategy” for the future of farming involves “finding ways for farmers to produce more corn and soybeans on every acre … while substantially lowering carbon emissions.”⁸ According to Fortune:⁹

“Surprisingly, both Gates and Brown believe that genetically modified seeds and chemical herbicides, in the right doses — and not land-intensive organic farming — are crucial to curbing carbon emissions.”

Gates and Brown Support GMOs and Chemicals

When animals are raised according to regenerative agriculture, a complete ecosystem is created, one that is both healing for the land and productive for the farmers who keep it. Eating meat is not synonymous with harming the environment: It's industrial farming practices that inflict the damage. Some also believe eating meat means ripping out more forests so animals can graze, but often it’s grasslands and prairies that have been plowed up to plant a surplus of corn for ethanol.

U.S. cropland is already dominated by a two-crop planting cycle of corn and soybeans, largely for industrial animal feed. Like concentrated animal feeding operations, these chemical-laden monocrops are devastating the environment, and even though they're plant foods, are part of the problem, not the solution.

Rather than reverting to regenerative agriculture, in which livestock and crops are integrated into a symbiotic, complementary system that mimics the way nature works, agrochemical companies like Syngenta are using gene editing, genetic engineering, chemicals and biologics to create hybrid seed lines, crops resistant to winds, flooding and droughts and other lab-created agricultural elements.

It’s all based on technology to advance seed and crop protections, in what’s referred to as “the new paradigm of farming.” If Gates has his way, organic will be pushed out of the picture. Fortune reported:¹⁰

“Gates — America’s biggest owner of farmland — acknowledges that organic farming is more harmful to the environment than conventional farming. Asked by Rashida Jones on a December 2020 podcast, ‘Does eating organic help [reduce emissions]?’ Gates replied, ‘No, organic produce requires more land than typical farming techniques. I know that’s not a popular answer.’ Jones riposted, ‘Hard take, Bill!’”

Brown is also pro-GMOs and chemical herbicides. Fortune continued:¹¹

“In an article from 2019, Brown wrote that Impossible was facing a shortage of soy because it relied on farms that didn’t use genetically modified seeds. The reason: Non-modified seed wasn’t nearly as resistant to disease, lowering output and forcing farmers to use far more herbicide.

Brown found that going with genetically modified crops provided both the extra supply he needed, and gave burgers the ‘beefy texture’ his fans craved. ‘The safest and most environmentally friendly option to allow us to scale up production and provide the Impossible Burger to consumers at the lowest possible cost is GM soy,’ he said.”

It’s an incredibly short-sighted statement, however, that completely ignores the many downsides of GM soy, which include devastating effects on insects like monarch butterflies as well as the promotion of herbicide-resistant superweeds.

Testing by Moms Across America also revealed the Impossible Burger contains glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, which has been shown to alter the gene function of over 4,000 genes in the livers, kidneys and cause severe organ damage in rats at levels of just 0.1 part per billion.¹² The Impossible Burger contained 11.3 ppb (glyphosate and its break down AMPA).

Biotech PR Campaign to Convince You to Eat Synthetic Food

U.S. Right to Know reporter Stacy Malkan tweeted in March 2021 that Bill Gates’ plans to remake our food systems are a problem for both farmers and consumers who don’t want to eat GE corn and soy that’s turned into processed, synthetic food products.¹³

Whether or not it’s “unpopular” doesn’t matter, though, as Gates said he thinks rich countries should be eating all fake meat. When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used to it”:¹⁴

The plan to get consumers used to replacing their burgers with synthetic, fake food has been underway since at least 2014, when a group of powerful agribusiness executives met to organize a PR campaign that would put synthetic biology and GMOs in a more favorable light. Dana Perls, from Friends of the Earth, attended the meeting and later wrote:¹⁵

“The meeting was under Chatham House rules — which means I can’t disclose who said what. However, I can say that the meeting was an alarming insight into the synthetic biology industry’s process of creating a sugar-coated media narrative to confuse the public, ignore the risks, and claim the mantle of ‘sustainability’ for potentially profitable new synthetic biology products.

Over the course of the day, primarily CEOs, directors and PR people from powerful chemical and synthetic biology companies, bounced around tales of promise, discussed how to position synthetic biology as a ‘solution’ to world hunger, and made blithe claims of safety that were not backed up by any actual data.

… When I asked how biotech companies will protect small farmers who are producing the truly natural products, I was met with a hard cold stare, silence and a non-answer about needing to meet consumer demand.”

In a recap of the key take-away points from the meeting, Perls said the industry’s PR strategy included not using the terms “synthetic biology” and “genetically engineered,” which have negative connotations, and trying to change the public narrative by capturing emotions and flooding the media with feel-good stories about synthetic biology.

The group agreed that the industry should remain self-regulated as much as possible, and that the results of corporate studies should not be public knowledge. They even suggested that the industry should present the image that they’re looking out for food sustainability, transparency and food sovereignty. But, Perls noted, “When I pointed out that corporate-controlled synthetic biology is the antithesis of ‘food sovereignty,’ I was met again with stony silence.”¹⁶

UN Food Summit Boycotted Over Agribusiness Influence

Corporate interests are also dominating the September 23, 2021, United Nations Food Systems Summit, and hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting it as a result. They believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.¹⁷

The Summit claims it is convening to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food,”¹⁸ but critics say it is biased toward industrial, corporate farming while leaving out those in regenerative agriculture and the knowledge of indigenous people.¹⁹

The controversy began right from the start, when U.N. secretary general António Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata as the event’s head. Kalibata is the former Rwandan agriculture minister who is now the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.²⁰

AGRA is essentially a Gates Foundation subsidiary, and while some of its projects appear to be beneficial, most of its goals are centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers. AGRA was launched in 2006 with funding from Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

After more than a decade, AGRA’s influence has significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.²¹

Concerns that the Summit was dominated by corporate industry heightened when its concept paper included precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as pillars for addressing food security while leaving out regenerative agriculture.

As reported by The Guardian, Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, wrote to Kalibata stating that the Summit was focused on “science and technology, money and markets” while leaving fundamental questions about inequality, accountability and governance unaddressed.²²

Corporate Ideology Is Pushing Out Real Regeneration

Unfortunately, the U.N. Food Summit is now poised to bow down to corporate ideology instead of embracing the small farmers and regenerative practices that have true potential to feed the world and heal the planet. As for Gates’ increasing monopoly on farmland, it’s worth noting that when you own the land, you also own the water that’s beneath it.

For those who control resources like food and water, power is limitless, and with his vast amounts of land, he can grow all the GE soy necessary to create the fake meat he’s so heavily pushing — or perhaps it’s even worse than that. As noted by The Defender about several of Gates’ more questionable endeavors:²³

“Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.

So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/39hE8Kw
via IFTTT

Allergic reactions to the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are rare, typically mild and treatable, and they should not deter people from becoming vaccinated, according to researchers.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3CnbQL5

Researchers have developed an approach to estimating when a person who is at high risk of Alzheimer's dementia but has no cognitive symptoms will start showing signs of cognitive decline. The approach is based on data from a single brain scan, combined with the person's age.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2XtjOUr

Researchers are finding a link between the increased presence of certain bacteria in a gut biome and colon cancer.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3kjvEsy

Researchers have created a novel automated program that accurately and quickly counts micronuclei in stained images. Micronuclei are small nucleus-like structures that are markers of pathologies such as cancer. The development of this automated program will be useful for future research into micronuclei and may aid in the diagnosis and tracking of a range of pathologies.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hLpyQ2

Six stages of engagement in treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been reported by researchers based on a diverse study, inclusive of parents of predominantly racial and ethnic minority children with ADHD.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/39cI5Ai

Researchers find that youth who witness the abuse of a brother or sister by a parent can be just as traumatized as those witnessing violence by a parent against another parent. Such exposure is associated with mental health issues like depression, anxiety and anger.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2XtniG5

A recent study reveals new details about how the body's type 2 innate immune response system works.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Xz37H3

Scientists don't really know what kills many cancer patients, but fruit fly research could provide answers. By following flies with tumors up to the point of death, researchers have discovered chemicals produced by tumors that shorten life span apart from the damage done locally to critical organs. This suggests a novel strategy for extending a healthy life span in those with a cancer burden: block the tumor-generated chemicals and the damage they do.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hKsYCJ

An engineer has developed a microneedle array that punctures biofilm covering ulcerated cells and tissues. The needles deliver antibiotics to the wounds by absorbing liquid underneath the biofilm and then dissolving.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zm25uG

Scientists have identified a chemical pathway to an innovative nanomaterial that could lead to large-scale production for applications ranging from spacesuits to military vehicles.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hKiaV7

Once a scent is detected, different areas of the brain are activated. A team has recently discovered that structures of the olfactory sense work closely together with the brain's reward and aversion systems. This means that scents are processed not only by the olfactory center but also by regions responsible for emotions and valence determination.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3luhTqu

Using the lamprey, researchers analyzed the photosensory mechanism of the pineal organ, also called the pineal gland, in non-mammalian vertebrates and discovered a novel mechanism of pineal color discrimination (two-cell system) in which two types of photoreceptor cells, each containing two different opsins, are used to detect color. This discovery may provide insight into the evolution of color detection in other animals, including color vision in humans.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3nK5d1h

The ability to visualize cancerous tumors and metastatic tissue three dimensionally (3D) can help clinicians diagnose the precise type and stage of cancer, while also informing the best treatment methods. To obtain an even clearer tissue for imaging, a research team based in Japan has tested the effectiveness of specialized hydrogels. Acting as a 3D molecular network, these hydrogels can rapidly remove fats from tissues, which are a factor in tissue opacification, without losing their structure. The material is used in several biomedical devices, including contact lenses.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3CiM3Uo

The chemical steps involved in an important cellular modification process that adds a chemical tag to some RNAs has been revealed in a new study. Interfering with this process in humans can lead to neuronal diseases, diabetes, and cancers.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3tPW609

Researchers established an organoid biobank to search for the genes that are essential for the spreading of a SARS-CoV2 infection. Their study highlights the usefulness of organoids for basic research into coronaviruses, as well as highlighting potential drug targets.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3nNf1bb

Diagnostic tests developed in-house in hospital laboratories are not currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), unlike those sold by manufacturers. A new study suggests that temporary deviations from FDA policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic offer a look at what regulation of these tests by the agency might look like. Findings from this study could inform legislation aimed at regulating lab-developed tests.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2XzIp9Z