Consumer Power

SIGN THE PETITION: Stop the Genetic Engineering of Viruses! Shut Down All 'Biodefense' Labs Immediately!

Organic consumers - Mon, 2021-07-19 19:24
Belong to campaign: COVID-19Category: COVID-19, COVID-19 Actions, Health IssuesArea: USA

Most people associate the words “genetic engineering” with GMO corn and soy crops, Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller and the anti-GMO movement’s hard-fought (but ultimately lost) campaign for GMO labeling laws.

As dangerous and unnecessary as genetic engineering is when used to modify food, the technology has an even more potentially deadly use: biowarfare.

It’s time to stop allowing—and funding—the dangerous and illegal activity of genetically engineering viruses, under the guise of “biodefense,” in the U.S. and worldwide.

SIGN THE PETITION: Stop the Genetic Engineering of Viruses! Shut Down All Biowarfare Labs Immediately!Read more

Take Action: 

Google's Eric Schmidt: Funding the Wuhan Lab & the COVID Origins Cover-Up

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-07-07 23:30
July 7, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerCOVID-19, COVID-19 Origins, OCA on COVID-19 coronavirus_black_red_google_logo_1200x630.jpg

If you’ve read anything about the possible lab origins of COVID-19, you’re likely familiar with the roles of Anthony Fauci, David Chistian “Chris” Hassell, Peter Daszak, Shi Zenghli, and Ralph Baric.

Their names were mentioned frequently on June 29 at an expert forum held by House Republicans entitled “Led By Science: The COVID-19 Origin Story.” Anthony Fauci and David Hassell were even invited to speak, along with NIH director Francis Collins. All three refused.

Each of the people I’ve profiled in my Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame series is complicit in the hunting and manipulation of bat coronaviruses that likely resulted in an industrial accident (or worse) causing SARS-CoV-2 to emerge in the vicinity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in late 2019.

However, recent sleuthing suggests that, while they are indeed the likely suspects, they may also be a carefully chosen group of spokespersons and poster-scientists whose job it is to take the flak for this deadly mistake threatening the multi-billion-dollar emerging infectious disease industry and its gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens.

Peter Daszak made news this week with an addendum to his infamous February 2020 Lancet letter. In the addendum, he finally listed his many conflicts of interests that compromised his roles as Wuhan Institute of Virology funder and collaborator, spokesperson for the anti-lab-leak-hypothesis camp, and COVID origins investigator. What he failed to mention is his long-standing and ongoing relationship with Google.

Natalie Winters’ revealed in the National Pulse that Eric Schmidt’s Google had funded Wuhan collaborator Peter Daszak’s virus experiments for over a decade. The news was explosive for a number of reasons, most notably that:

1. Google has censored the lab origin hypothesis.

2. Eric Schmidt’s foundation is funding the Covid Commission Planning Group.

Winters didn’t link Google to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but I reveal here that Google has funded the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative/Metabiota and HealthMap’s work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for several years. 

Metabiota, HealthMap, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance were partners in USAID’s PREDICT program from 2009 to 2020.

USAID’s PREDICT and PREVENT programs, launched in 2009, actually began at Google.org in 2008 as the non-profit foundation’s Predict and Prevent program.

In 2018, the same team launched the Global Virome Project, billed as a 10-year plan to map more than a million unknown viruses at the cost of $1.2 billion.

Then, in 2020, the Global Virome Project was rolled into the Trinity Challenge, led by Google, Microsoft, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Facebook, GSK, the Clinton Health Access Foundation, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Vaccine Confidence Project and several other corporations and corporate non-profits.

In 2021, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard launched the new, $300 million Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center, collaboration of biopharmaceutical companies, including Genentech (a member of the Roche Group), AstraZeneca, and Novartis and technology and research companies, including DeepMind, Google Research, and Microsoft.

The new government home and funding source for these efforts is HARPA, the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency. President Biden has formally proposed $6.5 billion in the FY 2021-2022 budget for the agency and Congress is currently reviewing this proposal. Whitney Webb, writing in Unlimited Hangout, warned, “This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a ‘Digital Dictatorship.’”

Google is not merely a participant in the pandemic industrial complex, but a major driver of the emerging infectious disease industry, a force that may be more powerful and influential than any other in this sphere, including Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation’s Scott Dowell.

At best, despite the billions of dollars devoted to these efforts since 2008, Google has failed to predict or prevent a single outbreak or epidemic. At worst, it may have had a hand in causing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Google, Metabiota, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origins of COVID-19

Through Metabiota, a government-funded for-profit organization that Google Ventures is invested in and partners with, Google has funded and collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for several years. 

Metabiota, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, along with EcoHealth Alliance, were members of the PREDICT and PREDICT-2 Consortiums which dispersed $211.8 million in USAID PREDICT grants between 2009 and 2020.

The three organizations received PREDICT funding for work they published together in May 2014, “Evidence for Retrovirus and Paramyxovirus Infection of Multiple Bat Species in China,” an analysis of bat viruses collected in Yunnan near Pu’er City, south of Kunming, between November 2011 and March 2012. 

That places Google at a scene of a very significant moment in the COVID-19 origin story.

It was in Kunming, just after Metabiota, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance had finished their virus hunt that six men exposed to bat guano were hospitalized with severe pneumonia of an unknown cause. They were admitted to the hospital in April. Three died. The longest hospitalization lasted into September.

It was during and after that outbreak, (August and September 2012 and April and July 2013) that Shi Zhengli, working under a grant from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, discovered the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 in the same cave where the six men had been working.

In February 2020, Shi published the same virus as RaTG13, calling attention to its similarities to SARS-CoV-2 without mentioning the virus’s relationship to the hospitalized men or the fact that it had been published as RaBtCoV/4991 in 2016’s “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft.” 

The omission tells us there’s something about the hospitalized men Shi Zhengli doesn’t want us to know.

Did the men get sick while “cleaning the bats’ feces inside the cave” for one of the PREDICT research teams?

Was RaTG13 taken from the hospitalized men rather than a bat colony, as Drs. Jonathan Latham and Alison Wilson have suggested?

Is that where Peter Daszak and Shi Zhengli got the virus they gave to Ralph Baric for his infamous gain-of-function experiments published in “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence”? It was around this time (between April 2011 and September 2012) that WIV’s Shi Zhengli and EcoHealth’s Peter Daszak, working with the USAID PREDICT Consortium, discovered the first bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor “at a single location in Kunming.”

Now that we know that Metabiota was virus hunting with the Wuhan Institute of Virology right before the outbreak, could this explain why Google is so interested in suppressing the origins of COVID-19?

Strangely, none of the PREDICT scientists published anything related to the deadly outbreak, even though spillover events like this were their raison d'etre, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology participated in attempts to diagnose the illness.

The first news of the 2012 outbreak was in March 2014, when Science Magazine ran a story, “A New Killer Virus in China?” about the publication of “Novel Henipa-like Virus, Mojiang Paramyxovirus, in Rats, China, 2012.” According to the authors, an all-Chinese team led by Qi Jin:

We report on a novel henipa-like virus, Mojiang paramyxovirus (MojV), in rats (Rattus flavipectus) in China.

In June 2012, in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, Yunnan Province, China, severe pneumonia without a known cause was diagnosed in 3 persons who had been working in an abandoned mine; all 3 patients died. Half a year later, we investigated the presence of novel zoonotic pathogens in natural hosts in this cave.

Did they go looking for paramyxoviruses because that was what the Metabiota team had been looking for when men cleaning an abandoned mine for them had gotten sick?

Google’s Pandemic Profiteering

In 2008, Google.org committed $30 million to virus hunting and gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens through a project it called Predict and Prevent. At least $5.5 million of that went to Dr. Nathan Wolfe’s non-profit Global Viral Forecasting Initiative, which was soon to become the for-profit Metabiota. Other GVFI funders at the time included the Skoll Foundation, which also gave $5.5 million, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck Research Laboratories and the US Department of Defense.

When the GVFI became the for-profit Metabiota, Google Ventures continued to invest. In addition, it created a business partnership with Metabiota, “offering its big-data expertise to help the company serve its customers–insurers, government agencies and other organizations–by offering them forecasting and risk-management tools.” In other words, they sell pandemic insurance! 

Google’s Predict and Prevent was a profitable investment. The company parlayed the $30 million it bundled through its non-profit Google.org, into hundreds of millions in government grants for its partners in the pandemic industrial complex, including $94 million for its for-profit partner Metabiota since 2008.

In its first funding cycle, 2009-2014, $74.7 million was dispersed to these partners from USAID through Dr. Jonna Mazet’s One Health Institute at the University of California, Davis. I have not been able to find a record of sub-awards on that grant. In its second funding cycle, 2014-2020, $137.1 million was dispersed, again through Mazet at UC-Davis. The record of sub awards show that EcoHealth Alliance and Metabiota were the primary recipients of round-2 funding, together receiving more than $74 million, often dispersed in matching grants. For instance, they each got $9.1 million in 2016 and $12.7 million in 2015.

But, Google’s “Predict and Prevent” concept wasn’t just a business or money-making opportunity. It was a means of shaping our understanding of disease threats.

Google as Mythmaker  

By embellishing the fiction that most diseases were contracted by humans from wild animals, Google helped to distract from the many health and safety concerns related to the factory farm production of animal protein, bio-weapons research and gain-of-function laboratory experiments on potential pandemic pathogens.

When Google launched Predict and Prevent in 2008, it was intended to settle controversies around the role of modern science in the emergence of HIV/AIDS and Ebola (something I discussed in my profile of Anthony Fauci). 

Google justified Predict and Prevent with an exaggeration of the dubious findings of a 2008 article by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, that “Three-quarters of new diseases are zoonoses, meaning they've jumped from animals to humans.”

That assertion was just as controversial in 2008 as the claim that humans got SARS-CoV-2 directly from bats is today. 

It was drawn from a paper by Peter Daszak that doesn’t mention Marburg, the first filovirus ever detected, which was undeniably the result of laboratory workers being exposed to monkey kidney cell cultures during the production of polio vaccines. Daszak designated Lyme disease, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and SARS as natural zoonoses without commenting on the research of independent scientists journalists and researchers, working without institutional funding, who uncovered evidence to the contrary. 

In sum, Google was—and is—in it for myth-making as much as money.

To the corporations and government agencies it invests in, partners with, has licensing agreements with, and sells ads to, there’s no difference between myth-making and money-making. It’s Google’s biggest asset.

The product Google sells is its supreme and unrivaled power to shape perceptions through its monopoly control of information accessed through internet searches.

Right now, they manage our perceptions. Ultimately, they aim to manage us.

How this could play out in the health-monitoring space is the very definition of dystopian. If you have not yet read Whitney Webb’s “This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a ‘Digital Dictatorship,’” please take the time now.

Pentagon Funded $39 MN to NGO for 'Gain of Function' COVID Research at Wuhan Lab: Report

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 21:14
COVID-19Sudeshna SinghRepublic WorldJune 6, 2021https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/global-event-news/pentagon-funded-39-dollars-mn-to-ngo-for-gain-of-function-covid-research-at-wuhan-lab-report.html pentagon-cc-1200x630.jpg

A report on Sunday revealed that Pentagon gave $39 million to EcoHealth Alliance (EHA)- the charity that funded coronavirus research at Wuhan Lab.

Further complicating the mystery of the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a report on Sunday revealed that Pentagon gave $39 million to EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) - the charity that funded controversial coronavirus research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology. The report comes as the charity’s chief, British-born scientist Dr. Peter Daszak, was exposed in an alleged conflict of interest and back-room campaign to discredit lab leak theories.

The U.S. nonprofit, set up to research new diseases, has also partly funded deeply controversial ‘gain of function’ experiments, where dangerous viruses are made more infectious to study their effect on human cells.

Trump canceled USD 3.7 million funding to EHA

In 2020, Donald Trump, the then President of the United States canceled the USD 3.7 million funding to the EHA, 

The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 21:10
COVID-19Steven QuayThe Wall Street JournalJune 6, 2021https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-lab-leak-11622995184 dna-1200x630.jpg

The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.

The possibility that the pandemic began with an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is attracting fresh attention. President Biden has asked the national intelligence community to redouble efforts to investigate.

Much of the public discussion has focused on circumstantial evidence: mysterious illnesses in late 2019; the lab’s work intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality (known as “gain of function” research). The Chinese Communist Party has been reluctant to release relevant information. Reports based on U.S. intelligence have suggested the lab collaborated on projects with the Chinese military.

But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19. 

 

Source Author 2: Richard Muller

'I Don't Know of a Bigger Story in the World' Right Now Than Ivermectin: NY Times Best-Selling Author

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 20:59
COVID-19Nick CorbishleyNaked CapitalismMay 25, 2021https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/i-dont-know-of-a-bigger-story-in-the-world-right-now-than-ivermectin-ny-times-best-selling-author.html tablets-1200x630.jpg

So why are journalists not covering it?

Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.

Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use.

Chinese Lab-Leak Investigators Demand Inquiry into Role Science Journals Played During Pandemic

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 20:47
COVID-19Jamie DettmerVOA NewsJune 14, 2021https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/chinese-lab-leak-investigators-demand-inquiry-role-science-journals-played-during coronavirus-1200x630.jpg

Scientists who have been challenging the theory that the coronavirus emerged naturally and couldn’t have leaked from a Chinese lab are calling for an inquiry into the role played during the pandemic by leading Western science and medical journals, including Nature and The Lancet. 

They say the editors of the influential journals rebuffed dozens of critical articles which raised at least the possibility of the coronavirus being engineered and that it might have subsequently leaked from a lab in Chinese city of Wuhan.  

“The managers of these journals may have wanted to appease the Chinese Communist Party, as China is where an increasing proportion of their revenue comes from, and China has made it clear that those journals it supports must agree to adhere to its policy agendas,” Nikolai Petrovsky, a professor of medicine at Australia’s Flinders University, told VOA. 

Author of 'Monsanto Papers' Tells RFK, Jr.: EPA Puts Monsanto's Interests Above Public Health

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 20:40
Genetic Engineering, Health IssuesChildren's Health Defense TeamThe DefenderJune 15, 2021https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-the-defender-podcast-carey-gillam-author-epa-monsanto-public-health/ pesticide-1200x630.jpg

Investigative journalist Carey Gillam told RFK, Jr. on the “RFK Jr The Defender Podcast,” emails dating back to the 1980’s show the EPA “was working very hard to put Monsanto's interests above the interests of public health.”

Carey Gillam’s new book, “The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice,” tells the story of Dewayne Lee Johnson’s struggle to survive and his legal battle against Monsanto.

Johnson has non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer he alleges was caused by glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller.

Gillam’s book, released in March, illustrates the impact of Monsanto’s deception when the company lied to health officials, scientists and consumers about the safety of its Roundup products.

Gillam told Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the “RFK Jr The Defender Podcast,” that emails dating back to the 1980’s show the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

How the Gates Foundation Is Driving the Food System, in the Wrong Direction

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 20:34
Environment & Climate, Farm IssuesGRAINGrain.orgJune 17, 2021https://grain.org/e/6690 field-1200x630.jpg

In 2014 GRAIN published a detailed breakdown of the grants made by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote agricultural development in Africa and other parts of the world.1 Our main conclusion then was that the vast majority of those grants were channelled to groups in the US and Europe, not Africa nor other parts of the global South. The funding overwhelmingly went to research institutes rather than farmers. They were also mainly directed at shaping policies to support industrial farming, not smallholders.

Much has happened since then. For starters, Bill and Melinda Gates announced their divorce in May this year, leaving the future of the Foundation and its grant-making in doubt. The news came as Bill Gates himself came under fire for supporting Big Pharma's patent monopoly on COVID-19 vaccines, for effectively preventing people's access across much of the world, and for how he treats - or mistreats - women.2

Legal Notice for 'Contempt of Court' and 'Crimes Against Humanity' Served to Dr. Tedros of the WHO

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 20:25
COVID-19Tom CoxOpen Source TruthJune 14, 2021http://www.opensourcetruth.com/legal-notice-for-contempt-of-court-and-crimes-against-humanity-served-to-dr-tedros-of-the-who/ world-1200x630.jpg

The Indian Bar Association has served a legal notice for contempt of court and crimes against humanity to the director general of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus, and the chief scientist at the WHO, Dr Soumya Swaminathan.

The IBA, a private bar association headquartered in Mumbai, served the notice due to the WHO continuing to spread disinformation about the drug ‘Ivermectin’, despite having full knowledge of a judgement passed by the Honourable High Court of Bombay at Goa on the 29th May 2021.

The judgement was passed after a previous legal note was served on the 25th May 2021 to the chief scientist at the WHO, Dr Soumya Swaminathan due to public statements made, including on Twitter, stating that the WHO did not recommend the use of Ivermectin to treat the alleged Covid-19 disease, “except within clinical trials”.  She also said there was “no evidence” that the drug helped stop the alleged disease’s progression.

Fear Is Contagious and Used to Control You

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 20:19
COVID-19, Politics & GlobalizationDr. Joseph MercolaMercola.comJune 18, 2021https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/18/fear-contagious.aspx fear1200x630.jpg

Governments are using fear to control and manipulate their citizens. That has now been admitted by members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K. And they should know, because they advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake. As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:1

Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’ Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.’

Psychological Warfare Is Real

The Telegraph quotes several of the SPI-B members, all of whom are also quoted in the newly released book, “A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” written by Laura Dodsworth:2

One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: ‘In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.

The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’ …

One warned that ‘people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’ …

Another member of SPI-B said they were ‘stunned by the weaponization of behavioral psychology’ during the pandemic, and that ‘psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them.’

Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the COVID Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: ‘If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become. If we’re being really honest, do I fear that government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.’

The Manufacture of Fear

For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. For months on end, you couldn’t turn on the television without facing a tickertape detailing the number of hospitalizations and deaths.

Even when it became clear that people weren’t really dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media fed us continuous updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting such figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.

Information that would have balanced out the bad news — such as recovery rates and just how many so-called “cases” actually weren’t, because they never had a single symptom — were censored and suppressed.

They also refused to put any of the data into context, such as reviewing whether the death toll actually differed significantly from previous years. Instead, each new case was treated as an emergency and a sign of catastrophic doom.

Fifty-Nine Labs Around World Handle the Deadliest Pathogens - Only a Quarter Score High on Safety

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 19:23
COVID-19Filippa LentzosThe ConversationJune 21, 2021https://theconversation.com/fifty-nine-labs-around-world-handle-the-deadliest-pathogens-only-a-quarter-score-high-on-safety-161777 virusworld-1200x630.jpg

Did the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 result from high-risk research gone wrong? Regardless of the answer, the risk of future pandemics originating from research with dangerous pathogens is real.

The focal point of this lab-leak discussion is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, nestled in the hilly outskirts of Wuhan. It is just one of 59 maximum containment labs in operation, under construction or planned around the world.

Known as biosafety level 4 (BSL4) labs, these are designed and built so that researchers can safely work with the most dangerous pathogens on the planet – ones that can cause serious disease and for which no treatment or vaccines exist. Researchers are required to wear full-body pressurised suits with independent oxygen.

Spread over 23 countries, the largest concentration of BSL4 labs is in Europe, with 25 labs. North America and Asia have roughly equal numbers, with 14 and 13 respectively. Australia has four and Africa three. 

Source Author 2: Gregory Koblentz

WHO Says Don't Vaccinate Kids for COVID-19

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-23 16:36
June 23, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerCOVID-19 vaccinate1200x630.jpg

As we learned from Dr. Henry Ealy in Monday’s weekly broadcast on data coming into the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, the latest VAERS data for 12-to-17-year-olds include 7 deaths and 271 serious adverse events following COVID vaccination.

VAERS data showed a total of 358,379 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 11, 2021.

On June 21, 2021, the World Health Organization updated its recommendation on who should be vaccinated to read:

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older… [but] discuss your situation with your care provider if you:

•Have a compromised immune system

•Are pregnant (if you are already breastfeeding, you should continue after vaccination) 

•Have a history of severe allergies, particularly to a vaccine (or any of the ingredients in the vaccine)

•Are severely frail

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults.

Appallingly, the WHO toned down its language the next day:

Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.  

More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.

Still, the message is clear: It isn’t worth the risk to vaccinate kids for COVID-19.

Tragically, many people in the situations listed above, as well as children 17 and younger, have already been vaccinated and U.S. public health authorities continue to make it their policy to vaccinate them.

The same day that the WHO said not to vaccinate children, a White House spokesperson said that they planned to start vaccinating children 12 and younger by the end of the year or early 2022.

In many places children as young as 12 can be vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of their parents. 

On Wednesday, June 23, several venues vaccinating children without parental consent in Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. were picketed by Children’s Health Defense activists. They demonstrated against giving children COVID-19 vaccinations and urged public health authorities to stop the ongoing clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines in children as young as six months old.

Concerned vaccine safety advocates gathered at the vaccine sites to provide vital information needed prior to making potentially life-altering healthcare decisions, urging children to forgo this and any other vaccines until they and their parents have been fully informed of the risks and benefits to children and young adults associated with each vaccine. 

Children’s Health Defense parents sent a strong warning to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, “Don’t mess with our kids!”   

In America, underaged children need parental consent to go to a suntan salon, attend a school field trip or be prescribed any medication. And, they can’t have a drink if they are under the age of 21. Yet these long-held safety guidelines are being cast aside for the experimental COVID-19 vaccines which are still undergoing clinical trials and carry the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Emergency Use” status only. Circumventing parental consent is clearly an overreach on the part of federal, state and local health officials. 

“Americans aren’t being fully informed when it comes to warp speed, liability-free COVID vaccines,” according to Children’s Health Defense Board Chair Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is receiving unprecedented numbers of reports of injuries and deaths following COVID vaccinations. CHD calls on all lawmakers and public health officials to stop the reckless vaccination of children who are not of age to consent.”

Even as the cardiac risks and heart inflammation affecting children and young adults following COVID-19 vaccination is gaining visibility, a concerted effort is underway to coerce this same group to get the vaccine anyway. In addition to the dire cardiac implications, an estimated 8% of the US population, including children, is at risk of having a potentially fatal anaphylactic shock to COVID-19 vaccines containing polyethylene glycol (PEG). This policy is at worst criminal and at least misguided considering young adults and children have a miniscule risk of hospitalization. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children comprised only 0.00%-0.23% of all COVID-19 deaths, and eight states reported zero child deaths. When children do get the disease, they’ll likely have lifelong immunity. 

The CDC reports that children are less likely to develop severe illness or die from Covid-19 and are more likely to be asymptomatic or show mild systems. 

With lower rates of infection among children compared with adults, the CDC’s recommendations are perplexing. Why encourage a vaccine that has no long term safety data to support its use and carries more risk to children’s health than the actual disease? 

Among the thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths of young people after receiving a COVID vaccine are the following:

•College Athlete Who Recovered From COVID Facing ‘Very Different Future’ After Second Dose of Pfizer Vaccine Triggers Myocarditis

•Dad Says Life ‘Not the Same’ for 21-Year-Old Student Who Developed Myocarditis After Second Moderna Shot

•19-Year-Old College Freshman Dies From Heart Problem One Month After Second Dose of Moderna Vaccine

•Utah mom blames COVID vaccines for blood clots in both son and husband

•Viral Twitter post claims 13yo died of ‘cardiac event’ as doctors consider link between rare heart condition & vaccine in boys

•Seven teenage boys in the U.S. reportedly developed chest pain and heart inflammation within days of receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 shot, according to a new study.

•18 Connecticut Teens Hospitalized for Heart Problems After COVID Vaccines

Over 50% of children in the US now suffer from one or more chronic health conditions. CHD believes that exposures to environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, play a critical role in the development of these conditions.

The clinical trials for young adults and children will take a year or more to be finalized, yet the CDC has already suggested that the COVID-19 vaccination can be given concurrently with other vaccines like the meningococcal and human papillomavirus vaccines. The short and long term synergistic effects of administering multiple vaccines simultaneously are completely unknown. If left unchallenged, health authorities will in essence be using America’s children as guinea pigs for the vaccine, some of whom will suffer life long injuries and even death.

“We are at a defining crossroads in human history,” said CHD Executive Director Laura Bono. “The United States and the world are moving towards universal mandates of all vaccines for all children. Adding COVID mandates to the mix will prove deadly for some. The combination of high powered vaccines such as meningitis and HPV along with COVID-19 carries the capacity to injure and even kill. We must act now.”

By Investigating Itself the US Can Answer Many Of The Key COVID-19 Origin Questions

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-06-22 20:51
COVID-19Jorge Casesmeiro RogerIndependent Science NewsJune 8, 2021https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/by-investigating-itself-the-us-can-answer-many-of-the-key-covid19-origin-questions/ person-1200x630.jpg

On May 26 U.S. President Biden gave U.S. Intelligence agencies 90 days to report findings about the possible Wuhan lab origin of the Covid-19 pandemic.

One component of this investigation, having subpoena power, should focus on the “U.S./Wuhan GoF controversy”. This is the hypothesis that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded risky research into coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), especially during the federal GoF Pause imposed in 2014 under the Obama Administration, and also under the P3CO Framework established by the Trump Administration in 2017. Such a connection, it should be noted, does not automatically imply culpability if a lab escape is proven.

In recent months, an increasing number of official and media sources have drawn attention to this debate. On January 15 2021 it was mentioned in a disputed Department of State Fact Sheet (point 3.3) released by the last Administration. 

The Drug that Cracked Covid

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-06-22 20:42
COVID-19Michael CapuzzoMountain HomeMay 1, 2021https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf hands1200x630.jpg

In this Buffalo Hospital Room, a Grandmother Led the Global Fight for the Drug that Would Save Her Life and End the Pandemic.

When my daughter Grace, a vice president at a New York advertising agency, came down with COVID-19 recently, she was quarantined in a “COVID hotel” in Times Square with homeless people and quarantining travelers. She locks on her room door were removed. Nurses prowled the halls to keep her in her room and wake her up every night to check her vitals—not to treat her, because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19; only, if her oxygen plummeted, to move her to the hospital, where there is only a single effective approved treatment for COVID-19, steroids that may keep the lungs from failing. The absence of treatments for COVID-19 is a global crisis, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said recently on 60 Minutes, for vaccines “are not enough.”

Why 'Gain of Function' Research Must Be Stopped: Monali Rahulkar

Organic consumers - Tue, 2021-06-22 20:22
COVID-19Pooja Biraia JaiswalThe WeekJune 13, 2021https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2021/06/03/why-gain-of-function-research-must-be-stopped-monali-rahulkar.html covid-19-1200x630.jpg

Q: Was it a lab-made-and-leaked virus?

A: As of now we do not know for sure if they have used RaTG13 sequence as the backbone for genetic engineering to convert it into a Sars-CoV-2-like virus for their experiments. What we know for sure is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had a lot of techniques by which they could manipulate a virus sequence into a living virus.

Various publications from this lab prove that such a backbone can be converted into a living virus. The clues are there, but the main proof that such a virus existed is not with us. For foolproof evidence, the scientific community needs on-site and off-site lab records and details of the experiments they carried out.

Q: If the lab leak theory is found true, it will have a major impact on virology labs across the world.

 

The New Yorker Publishes Misinformation About Misinformation

Organic consumers - Thu, 2021-06-17 14:49
June 17, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerCOVID-19, COVID-19 Treatment, Others on COVID-19 new_yorker_misinformation_1200x630.png

 

We’re being told there’s an urgent public health necessity to censor vaccine misinformation.

What is this assumption based on? Who gets to decide what is “misinformation” and whether it should be censored?

These aren’t theoretical questions for the Organic Consumers Association. 

On May 27, the entire Democratic leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee sent letters to Facebook, Google and Twitter asking these social media companies to de-platform a hit list of organic and natural health experts and organizations, including OCA, accusing us―without evidence―of spreading vaccine disinformation.

In March, the New Yorker ran a “Letter from the U.K.” by Anna Russell, “The Fight Against Vaccine Misinformation.” The article provided clues to who’s behind the efforts to deplatform us:

A study published in Nature last month showed that misinformation had a significant effect on vaccine uptake. The number of Brits who said they would “definitely” accept the vaccine dropped by 6.2 percentage points after they were exposed to common conspiracies—that Bill Gates was plotting against his fellow-Americans, for instance. A critical mass of a population needs to adopt the vaccine for herd immunity to be reached. As Heidi Larson, who worked on the study, put it, “Vaccines only work if people take them.”

Heidi Larson and her Vaccine Confidence Project are funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and Merck. 

When we read her study, we saw that some of the social media posts she used were, in her own words, “correct,” and based on scientific research, but classified as misinformation for the purposes of the study.

That destroys the credibility of Larson’s study. 

(We go through each of the social media posts she used as “misinformation” below.)

But, even if her study wasn’t irredeemably skewed, the nugget of exaggerated and cherry-picked data that Russell chose to refer to, isn’t an accurate characterization of what the study actually found.

Looking at the study results, you could easily draw the conclusion that a majority of people large enough to achieve herd immunity were willing to get the vaccine, even after exposure to vaccine misinformation.

But, weirdly, the data also revealed that factual information consistently caused a slight dip in the percentage of people willing to vaccinate. 

Larson created a controlled setting in which to test the impact of real-life social media posts, but the study participants were exposed to social media―where the posts were already in circulation―prior to being surveyed. 

This provided a real-world opportunity to measure the posts’ actual impact, and Larson included questions in her survey about whether the study participants had already seen the information and how often. However, she did not publish the results.

“Correct” misinformation

There are numerous flaws in Heidi Larson’s study published February 5, 2021 in the journal Nature Human Behavior, “Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA.”

The most glaring is that some of the “misinformation” Larson used to sway subjects’ views on vaccination was actually “correct,” to quote the author.

Social Media Post #1 (U.S. & U.K.) - All the monkeys contracted coronavirus 

This tweet from Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet dated May 19, 2020, was shown to both U.S. and U.K. study participants:

Scientists have expressed doubts over the effectiveness of a coronavirus vaccine that has been rushed to human trials, after all the monkeys used in initial testing later contracted coronavirus.

It links to “Experts Suggest £90 Million Oxford University Coronavirus Vaccine Doesn’t Work.”

Here’s the study’s rationale for classifying this content as misleading:

As per the trials data for the vaccine in question, viral load for vaccinated rhesus macaques challenged with the virus was much lower in the lungs and lower respiratory tract, and comparable to controls only in the nose. Also, the disease was significantly less severe than in controls, w/ no clear evidence if this infection could replicate & spread to others: see ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques. Hence, although prima facie the information is correct, it is partial and is classified as misinformation.

The tweet had 1.59k engagements and a reach of 1.5 million.

It has not been censored.

Social Media Post #2 (U.S. & U.K.) - You will become a genetically modified human being

This July 23, 2020 tweet by Perimeter News was shown to both U.S. and U.K. study participants:

The new vaccine for Covid-19 will be the first of its kind EVER. It will be an mRNA vaccine which will literally alter your DNA. It will wrap itself into your system. You will essentially become a genetically modified human being.

It included a diagram of RNA and DNA (that didn’t explain anything about how the mRNA vaccine would make you become a genetically modified human being), and no link. The only comment it got was an “ehh...no” gif, to which the author did not reply. The tweet has not been censored.

The tweet had only 27 engagements and a reach of just 19.6k, far less than the first tweet that accurately referenced a scientific article and had 1.59k engagements and a reach of 1.5 million.

But here’s how Larson described the tweet’s impact to the New Yorker:

Larson has identified certain false narratives that are especially effective in eroding vaccine confidence. When participants were shown anti-vax material that seemed to be rooted in science, for example, they were more likely to be swayed. “The more scientific-looking pieces had more impact,” Larson said. One image, which had already been shared widely online, showed DNA and RNA spirals, and warned, baselessly, that mRNA vaccines will “literally alter your DNA.” (“It will wrap itself into your system,” the caption read. “You will essentially become a genetically modified human being.”) The image “looks like it’s straight out of a genomics textbook,” Larson said. It got more traction than one that hinted, not subtly, at a global conspiracy to reduce population numbers through the pandemic and the vaccine. It showed a shadowy Bill Gates in dark glasses, like an action star “in a Bollywood film or something,” Larson said.

We’ll discuss the Bill Gates tweet next, but, In truth, both tweets were duds compared with the first tweet that correctly stated the findings of a scientific study.

We traced the origin of the urban myth about the COVID-19 vaccine creating genetically modified human beings back to Dr. Carrie Madej, an osteopath in Georgia. 

Dr. Madej released a video, with references, about “transhumanism” where she describes her theory that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines might permanently alter our DNA and then speculates on what that might mean if that capacity existed and was integrated with other technologies. 

This is definitely not settled science. At this point, there’s no science on whether or how the mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines might impact, let alone permanently alter, our DNA. 

MIT’s Rudolf Jaenisch is trying to figure out if the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself can do that. “All viruses insert their genetic material into the cells they infect,” reports Science, “but it generally remains separate from the cell’s own DNA.” Some retroviruses, HIV for instance, establish “permanent genetic residence in human cells to keep pumping out new copies,” but there’s no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has the same capacity.

That said, the question of how the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines might impact our DNA remains open. Here’s Medical Daily’s interview with Dr. Jaenisch on the subject:

MD:  Does your recent study indicate that the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines can damage DNA in humans?

Dr. Jaenisch:  Not really evidence of damage. The mRNA can integrate into the DNA and possibly be expressed but there is no direct evidence of that.  

MD:  If the mRNA vaccines can integrate into human DNA what could this mean for the future?

Dr. Jaenisch:  It will be breakthrough technology.  It will change the way diseases are treated.

MD:  How will mRNA or DNA vaccines change treatments?

Dr. Jaenisch: These mRNA Covid-19 vaccines are the first to show safety and efficacy of this type of therapy. If there is sufficient evidence that this technology is safe and effective then this has huge potential for future therapies for treating many diseases. 

Social Media Post #3 (U.K.) - Bill Gates’ depopulation plot

This tweet from the now deplatformed account of @Prometheous2020, was shown to U.K. study participants:

“They said it was just to flatten the curve. Now it’s a battle for human survival.” The only must-see action thriller for 2020. Starring: Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Chris Witty, Matt Hancock. Guest mask appearances: Clintons, Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon, Joe Biden & Tedros. [Graphic featuring Mr. Bill Gates with the following quote.] “If we do a really good job with vaccines, we can reduce population by up to 15%. But if we create a worldwide pandemic first, killing people and making many of the survivors sterile, then create the vaccine, we may achieve the Georgia Guidestones 1st commandment!”

For obvious reasons, like social media post #2, this one also fell flat, with only 11 engagements and a reach of just 1.49k. That’s according to the paper. We can't see what kind of engagement it got, because its author’s account has been suspended.

Like social media post #2’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines will create genetically modified human beings, this claim about the pandemic and vaccine being part of a Bill Gates plan to reduce population, is another urban myth.

This one can be traced back to a 2010 Bill Gates quote:

First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3. 

Social Media Post #4 (U.K.) - A 99.6% survival rate

This tweet from the now deplatformed account of @jimcorrsays, with a reach of 32.5k and no engagements, was shown to the U.K. study participants:

Something is very fishy about all this indeed. “A VIRUS WITH A 99.6% SURVIVAL RATE FOR PEOPLE UNDER 70 BUT THE ENTIRE WORLD NEEDS TO TAKE A VACCINE? I’M NO SHERLOCK HOLMES BUT SOMETHING’S FISHY ABOUT ALL THAT.......”

The 99.6% survival rate was accurate. The source was the Centers for Disease Control and it was mentioned in several mainstream news media headlines on May 26 when the CDC released new data, albeit in reverse: “CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported.” 

But, here’s what Professor Heidi Larson and her team thought of this tweet:

The post questions the necessity of a worldwide vaccination campaign against a disease with a high survival rate and states that the vaccination campaign is “fishy” (i.e., arousing feelings of suspicion). Quoting an under-70 survival rate of “99.6%” is misleading, since it ignores age-variability, disease spread, and contextual comparison to other infectious diseases: see Likelihood of survival of coronavirus disease 2019; Fact check: Does COVID-19 have a mortality rate of 1%-2%?. This post also does not consider the importance of herd immunity in conferring population-wide protection against a disease (see Herd immunity and COVID-19 (coronavirus): What you need to know), using the word “fishy” to suggest undisclosed suspicious motives without evidence. Hence, classified as misinformation.

So, according to Larson, “The COVID19 mortality rate is 0.4%.” is true, while “The COVID19 survival rate is 99.6%.” is false?

She knows better, of course, and the dates on her fact-checking sources (March 30, 2020 and May 5, 2020), show that she used old data to color a post based on up-to-date CDC data as “misinformation.”

Social Media Post #5 (U.K.) - An anti-fertility vaccine

The fifth and final social media post shown to U.K. study participants in the group receiving “misinformation” was a tweet by the now deplatformed account of @DavidIcke:

Big Pharma whistleblower: “97% of corona vaccine recipients will become infertile”

It linked to a video containing genuine misinformation that was posted on Icke’s website on June 20, 2020 and appeared elsewhere on June 17, 2020.

The tweet was very popular, with 6.95k engagements and a reach of 336k.

The story, in a nutshell, is that a GlaxoSmithKline whistleblower had shared inside information about an antigen in an upcoming COVID-19 vaccine that was proven to cause infertility in up to 97% of recipients.

While it may have been shared in good faith, its source appears to be a scam scripted by Zed Phoenix/Ben Fellows. What makes it even more dangerous is that it included a call-to-action to help discover the truth, which likely resulted in unwitting and curious folks getting taken in, hook, line and sinker, entering their emails and credit card numbers into Fellow’s waiting website.

However, it is also possible that Fellows was the person who was scammed.

Should information like this be censored? Only to the extent necessary to prevent fraud, and that should be a determination made by law enforcement, not internet companies or their regulators.

If Fellows were found to be running a scam to get people to donate, for instance, then that should be clearly explained on a redirect from his website. Websites like Icke’s that posted the fraudulent information could be required to publish corrections. 

Regardless of who’s behind the misinformation, this is a situation where good fact-checkers can prevent people from being victims of fraud. AAP’s fact check is very helpful: “COVID-19 vaccine ‘whistleblower’ information sounds a lot like an unrelated study from 1989.”

Social Media Post #3 (U.S.) - Censorship is vile

The third social media post shown to U.S. study participants is a popular tweet about censorship that had 25.1k engagements and a reach of 1.41k before being removed from Twitter, along with its author, @uTobian:

I’ve been in Twitter jail for the last 12 hours for posting a link to a peer reviewed scientific study published in Vaccine showing that in military personnel prior receipt of the flu shot increased coronavirus risk by 36%. Censorship is vile & unAmerican.

The tweet is factual. A study showed receipt of the flu shot increased coronavirus risk by 36%. However, the study was done before COVID-19, and it did not provide direct evidence that COVID-19 risk is increased by the flu shot.

We can’t see @uTobian’s original tweet now, but nothing in the tweet suggests that he posted the article in bad faith or with an intent to mislead.

The scientific article he posted has not been removed from the internet. Instead, it served as a catalyst for further research and has been cited 30 times. 

A triumph of science, not censorship.

Social Media Post #4 (U.S.) - Flu vaccine worsens COVID

The fourth social media post showed to U.S. study participants was from Facebook. The now deplatformed author was Larry Cook, founder of the Vaccine Free Child:

So we know for a fact that the flu vaccine worsens COVID symptoms. So what are they mandating now? The flu vaccine, of course.

Very similar to Tweet 3, this tweet was based on recent studies showing that flu vaccination was associated with COVID-19 severity. A study published much later (May 2021) showed that the flu vaccine was not significantly associated with adverse outcomes, but there’s no reason to believe that this post was without evidence.

Social Media Post #5 (U.S.) - The propaganda blitz

The fifth and final social media post showed to U.S. study participants was from Instagram:

PREPARING THE PROPAGANDA BLITZ. Yale University and the U.S. government are running clinical trials to develop propaganda messaging to persuade Americans to take experimental, genetically engineered, unlicensed, “Warp Speed,” zero liability, expedited vaccines with limited short-duration safety testing. Researchers compared reactions in 12 focus groups using “guilt, embarrassment, bravery, anger, trust” and “fear” to overcome vaccine hesitancy.

This Instagram post wasn't factually inaccurate, just very opinionated. It has since been removed.

Cherry-picked data

Participants were asked two questions:

If a new coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine became available, would you accept the vaccine for yourself?

If a new coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine became available, would you accept the vaccine if it meant protecting friends, family, or at-risk groups?

When Brits were asked about vaccinating to protect others, 63.7 percent said “definitely” and 24.7 percent “leaned yes.” There were 7 percent “leaning no” and only 4.5 percent who would “definitely not.”

That’s 88.4 percent on the “yes” side, and 11.5 percent on the “no” side. For public health advocates concerned about whether people would be willing to vaccinate, that should be good news. These people were exposed to real-world social media, where a range of information on vaccines was circulating, and they still wanted to get vaccinated.

After being exposed to social media “misinformation” a controlled setting, 83.6 were still on the “yes” side:

“Definitely” went from 63.7 percent to 55.7, down 8

“Leaning yes” went from 24.7 percent to 27.9, up 3.3

“Leaning no” went from 7 percent to 9.6, up 2.6

“Definitely not” went from 4.5 percent to 6.8, up 2.3

When Brits were asked if they would “accept the vaccine for yourself,” 54.1 percent said “definitely,” 31.9 percent said “leaning yes,” 8.0 percent said “leaning no,” and 6.0 percent said “definitely not.”

That’s 86 percent on the “yes” side and 14 percent on the “no” side. Again, figures that should allay any concerns about achieving desired vaccination rates.

After being shown social media “misinformation,” 79.7 percent were still on the “yes” side: 

“Definitely” dropped from 54.1 to 48.6 percent, down 5.5

“Leaning yes” dropped from 31.9 to 31.1 percent, down 0.8

“Leaning no” grew from 8.0 to 11.3 percent, up 3.3

“Definitely not” grew from 6.0 to 9.1 percent, up 3.1

U.S. results were similar.

When asked if they would vaccinate, 42.5 percent of people said “definitely,” 30 percent said “leaning yes,” 12.4 percent said “leaning no,” and 15 percent said “definitely not.”

After being shown social media posts with “misinformation” about vaccines, people’s views shifted slightly: 

“Definitely” dropped from 42.5 to 39.8 percent, down of 2.7.

“Leaning yes” dropped from 30 to 28.7 percent, down 1.3.

“Leaning no” grew from 12.4 to 14 percent, up 1.6.

“Definitely not” grew from 15 to 17.5 percent, up 2.5.

Overall, before the misinformation, there were 72.5 percent on the “yes” side and 27.4 percent on the “no” side. Afterwards, it was 68.5 percent on the “yes” side and 31.5 percent on the “no” side.

When asked the follow-up question about vaccinating “if it meant protecting friends, family, or at-risk groups,” support for vaccination was even higher, with 53.3 percent “definitely,” 24.7 percent “leaning yes,” 10 percent “leaning no” and 12 percent “definitely not.”

After “misinformation,” “yes” side lowered, but stayed within the herd immunity range at 73.1 percent:

“Definitely” dropped from 53.3 to 46.4 percent, down 6.9.

“Leaning yes” grew from 24.7 to 26.7 percent, up 2.

“Leaning no” grew from 10 to 11.7 percent, up 1.7.

“Definitely not” grew from 12 to 15.2 percent, up 3.2.

Factual information also caused a slight drop in the number of people willing to take a Covid vaccine!

The control group was asked about vaccination and then showed factual information.

In the U.S. cohort, before the “factual” information, there were 72.5 percent on the “yes” side and 27.4 percent on the “no” side. Afterwards:

“Definitely” grew from 42.5 to 46.3 percent, up 3.8.

“Leaning yes” dropped from 30 to 25.4 percent, down 4.6.

“Leaning no” grew from 12.4 to 12.5 percent, up 0.1.

“Definitely not” grew from 15 to 15.9 percent, up 0.9.

The post-factual information results were 71.7 percent on the “yes” side and 28.4 percent on the “no” side. That’s a difference of 1. 

And it’s actually away from vaccination!

When the U.S. control group was asked the follow up question about vaccinating for the sake of others, before and after factual information:

“Definitely” dropped from 53.3 to 52.9 percent, down 0.4

“Leaning yes” dropped from 24.7 to 22.5 percent, down 2.2

“Leaning no” grew from 10 to 11.3 percent, up 1.3

“Definitely not” grew from 12 to 13.4 percent, up 1.4 

Again, factual information was shown to cause a drop in willingness to vaccinate, this time 2.6 points, from 78 to 75.4 percent.

In the U.K. cohort, before the “factual” information, there were 86 percent on the “yes” side and 14 percent on the “no” side. Afterwards:

“Definitely” grew from 54.1 to 54.8 percent, up 0.7.

“Leaning yes” dropped from 31.9 to 30.9 percent, down 1.

“Leaning no” grew from 8 to 8.5 percent, up 0.5.

“Definitely not” dropped from 6 to 5.8 percent, up 0.2.

For a third time, factual information caused a movement away from vaccination, albeit a tiny one, from 86 to 85.7 percent on the “yes” side. 

On the follow-up question about vaccinating for the sake of others, before factual information 

“Definitely” dropped from 63.7 to 61.5 percent, down 2.2.

“Leaning yes” grew from 24.7 to 25.6 percent, up 0.9.

“Leaning no” grew from 7 to 7.2 percent, up 0.2.

“Definitely not” dropped from 4.5 to 5.7 percent, up 1.2.

For a fourth time in a row, factual information caused a (tiny) movement away from vaccination, from 88.4 to 87.1 percent on the “yes” side. 

No Support for Deplatforming Organic and Natural Health Advocates

Nothing in Larson’s study provided support for deplatforming the organic and natural health advocates on the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” hit list.

It’s time for journalists to start looking into the study authors' ties to GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and Merck, and figure out what these corporations are really up to.

Is this really about vaccine confidence and public health? Or, is it about big business suppressing accurate information about the dangers of their products?

We’re working on getting to the bottom of it. In the meantime, please contact your representatives in Congress.

Congress Wants Social Media to Deplatform Us—Take Action to Stop Censorship!

Grape Growers in Texas Region Sue Over Herbicide Damage

Organic consumers - Thu, 2021-06-17 02:01
Farm Issues, Genetic EngineeringAP NewsAP NewsJune 9, 2021https://apnews.com/article/texas-business-environment-and-nature-679e1f222aff32078fa27d3f2774c9a3 vines-1200x630.jpg

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Wine grape growers in Texas and surrounding states filed a lawsuit last week against drug-maker Bayer-Monsanto and chemical giant BASF for the damage their cotton herbicide has caused to vineyards.

Attorneys for the grape growers say cotton seed systems created by Bayer-Monsanto and BASF that use the highly volatile herbicide called dicamba to kill weeds is drifting to nearby vineyards and crippling the nonresistant grapes.

The lawsuit, filed in Jefferson County on Friday, claims that some family-owned vineyards have reported losses of more than 90% since Bayer-Monsanto and BASF began selling their dicamba-based genetically modified seed system to cotton growers.

More than 85% of all the wine grapes grown in Texas are grown within one hour of Lubbock, and the grapes are produced, sold or used by the state’s $13.1 billion wine industry, according to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.

Organic & Natural Health Advocates Are Being Targeted for Deplatforming

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-16 17:29
June 16, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerPolitics & Globalization internet_browser_blocked_1200x630.jpg

Despite our reticence and self-censorship, the Organic Consumers Association was put on a hit list of organic and natural health advocates that the House Energy & Commerce Committee has sent to Facebook, Google and Twitter, demanding our deplatforming.

We have a theory about how this hit list was compiled. We’re being targeted for vaccine safety advocacy, but all of the natural health practitioners and educators on the list are supporters of organic food and farming. 

There are conventional medicine doctors, university researchers and even a former Pfizer VP who have spoken out about the COVID-19 vaccine.

And, on the other end of the credibility spectrum, there are real scammers out there deliberately sharing misinformation, like George Webb and Zed Phoenix/Ben Fellows.

But, the ONLY people put on this hit list are vocal organic advocates:

Dr. Joseph Mercola: “Choosing organic products for yourself and your family is one of the most proactive measures you can implement to take control of your health.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: “Unless we act today to enable organic farming to survive and thrive across America, we will put at risk our ability to leave our children the clean water, breathable air and fertile soil they and future generations deserve."

Ty and Charlene Bollinger: “The reason I’m constantly telling you to buy and consume organic and/or chemical-free produce and meat whenever possible is because many common food pesticides are highly toxic. Pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides are designed to destroy life. Is it any wonder they also accumulate in, and act to damage the human body?”

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: “Add plenty of nutrient-rich organic fruits, vegetables and nuts to your diet, and eliminate all processed foods and sugar.”

Rizza Islam: “We are recommending getting on the organic train and staying there. Better yet, learn how to farm and grow your own food because it seems every single year they continue to add more and more ways to lessen the actual food content of food and increase the chemical side of.”

Dr. Rashid Buttar: “The adage ‘You are what you eat’ is literally true. Whether a pesticide is spread over the soil, sprayed onto foliage or added to irrigation water, it is taken up by the leaf and root structure of the plant. Whatever a plant ‘eats,’ you eat when you consume it. The same holds true for meat and dairy products. If it’s injected into livestock, added to their feed or found in the plants they consume or in the soil where they graze, you’re eating it as well. That’s why it’s absolutely essential to begin consuming more organic produce and organic animal products. In order for the body to begin healing—and especially if you’re interested in keeping the doctor away—you must first stop putting toxins into your body.”

Erin Elizabeth: “I believe in eating all organic.”

Sayer Ji: “The difference between a GMO, sewage- or petrochemical-fertilizer-grown, agrochemical-sprayed, and irradiated tomato versus one grown biodynamically in natural soil, without pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, is not immediately discernible when examined through the rubric of protein, carbohydrate, mineral, or vitamin content. But when assessed from the perspective of their informational, qualitative differences, the two tomatoes are on the opposite sides of the spectrum.”

Dr. Kelly Brogan: “By choosing a whole foods-based, organic diet, you not only get the healthiest and best-tasting foods, you support the long-term health of our species, and the planet.”

Dr. Christiane Northrup: “Purchase organic, seasonal fruits and vegetables from your local farmer’s market.”

Each of these organic and natural health advocates is an individual with their own interests and expertise, but to anti-organic companies peddling genetically engineered seeds and pesticides, they are an enemy block.

We’re working on getting to the bottom of which corporations and PR firms are behind the hit list. In the meantime, please contact your representatives in Congress:

Congress Wants Social Media to Deplatform Us—Take Action to Stop Censorship!

Is Bayer Behind a Hit List of Organic & Natural Health Advocates?

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-16 17:12
June 16, 2021Organic Consumers AssociationAlexis Baden-MayerHealth Issues, Politics & Globalization bayer5_1200x630.png

Has the unholy alliance between agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry, exemplified by the Bayer-Monsanto merger, given these corporations an added incentive to team up to take out their biggest detractors?

That possibility occurred to us when, despite our reticence and self-censorship, the Organic Consumers Association was put on a hit list of vaccine safety advocates known as the “Disinformation Dozen.”

We noticed that Voices for Vaccines was one of the pharmaceutical front-groups that’s been circulating the hit list and that it is a project of the Task Force for Global Health, which is funded by vaccine and pharmaceutical companies―including Bayer.

We might be mainly concerned with Bayer’s agribusiness interests, but we can’t forget that it is also a vaccine company.

Bayer will be manufacturing 160 million doses of CureVac’s mRNA-based vaccine candidate CVnCoV in 2022. The agreement between Bayer and CureVac also covers potential SARS-CoV-2 variants. GlaxoSmithKline is in on the deal, too.

Is this why Monsanto’s favorite trolls are working overtime looking for COVID-related ways to smear their opponents?

Recently, Monsanto troll Mary Mangan has been targeting the Organic Consumers Association’s investigations into the origins of COVID-19.

It never occurred to us that Bayer would be concerned about our campaign to ban gain-of-function experiments on potential pandemic pathogens, but it turns out they could be impacted by it.

On June 9, The Intercept reported that Bayer wants to build an expanded biological research facility on its 46-acre campus in Berkeley, California, and it is seeking the Berkeley City Council’s approval of a 30-year development plan, including a request that restrictions on certain kinds of DNA research be lifted. Bayer claims that it will not manipulate viral particles to make them more pathogenic, but the company has refused to commit in writing to ruling out all the research on viruses and bacteria that could be considered gain-of-function.

This has made us ever more eager to learn who’s behind the hit list.

We haven’t cracked the case yet, but circumstantial evidence points to the Vaccine Confidence Project funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and two organizations Bayer is represented by, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Bayer isn’t just a member of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, it has two representatives among its leadership. Stefan Oelrich, head of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division is a board member & patient access chair. Reinhard Franzen, head of Bayer’s Commercial Operations in Europe, Middle East & Africa is a corporate delegate.

The Innovative Medicines Initiative is a public-private partnership controlled by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. Bayer participates in the Strategic Governing Groups on Immunology, Diabetes/Metabolic Disorders, Neurodegeneration, Translational Safety, and Oncology.

This Bayer-backed Vaccine Confidence Project has been researching how social media messages about vaccine safety might influence people’s decisions to vaccinate and one of their studies was used in the report that accompanied the hit list. (More on that Vaccine Confidence Project study here.)

Ironically, while Bayer and its allied corporations are supposedly concerned about “vaccine confidence” in rich countries, they’re simultaneously lobbying to protect their patent rights to stop poor countries from manufacturing their vaccines. In “Big Pharma’s EU Lobbying Could Spell Disaster for Global South Vaccine Waivers,” Jacobin Magazine reports:

Last year, German giant Bayer spent more than €4.25 million on lobbying, more than any other company in the EU after Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. … FTI Consulting Belgium, the European arm of the Washington, DC public relations firm, is another one of the top spenders lobbying the European Parliament and the European Commission. The firm’s clients include COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, and several other pharmaceutical companies, according to EU disclosure records.

Do they want people to get the vaccines?

It looks to us like they’re just exploiting the COVID crisis every which way they can, from making money to silencing their critics.

That article gave us another clue. It mentioned that FTI Consulting was working for the pharmaceutical companies. 

FTI Consulting is one of “Bayer’s Shady PR Firms.” It’s infamous for creating deceptive astro-turf front groups for Monsanto and the fossil fuels industry. It wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine that the hit list could be part of an FTI front group campaign.

Anti-Vax Watch doesn’t have a single human being attached to its name and we have no idea who funds it. 

The so-called Center for Countering Digital Hate doesn’t reveal its funding, either. 

Restless Development’s biggest funder is MasterCard, which just happens to be FTI Consulting’s wealthiest client. 

Could FTI be the consulting group behind the curtain?

An article on FTI’s website begins:

The growing influence of social media alongside a shift in how people obtain and consume news has led to the rapid spread of misinformation about the origins of the COVID-19 virus. What impact will this have on public health and the acceptance of a vaccine?

Then, FTI goes into an analysis of Twitter mentions of the MMR vaccine. Somehow they arrived at this baseless (and not very significant) assumption (without evidence that vaccine decisions were made on the basis of information gleaned from social media):

The data obtained by the FTI Consulting team suggests that of the 3 percentage-point fall in vaccination coverage in the 5-year period from 2014-2018, over half was caused by misinformation. There is a knock-on effect on public health, as on average, a 1% decrease in vaccination coverage is associated with a 2% increase in the measles incidence rate.

This is very similar to the Vaccine Confidence Project study.

Another link between FTI Consulting and the hit list is the target of the article, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a doctor who was falsely accused of scientific and medical misconduct after he discovered a correlation between vaccination and autism.

We’ll keep trying to figure out exactly what Bayer’s doing behind closed doors to discredit and deplatform the Organic Consumers Association. In the meantime, you can read what Iain Davis has dug up:

CCDH – The Centre For Cancel Culture And Digital Hypocrisy – Part 1 by Iain Davis, August 9, 2020

CCDH – The Centre For Cancel Culture And Digital Hypocrisy – Part 2 by Iain Davis, August 9, 2020

Monsanto's PCB Chemicals in School Blamed for Allegedly Causing Teachers' Brain Damage, as in-Person Trial Begins

Organic consumers - Wed, 2021-06-16 17:03
Health IssuesDavid SiegelCourtroom View NetworkJune 10, 2021https://blog.cvn.com/monsantos-pcb-chemicals-in-school-blamed-for-allegedly-causing-teachers-brain-damage-as-in-person-trial-begins courtroom-1200x630.jpg

Seattle, WA - A Washington state court jury heard opening statements Wednesday on behalf of three teachers who claim they developed brain damage due to exposure to toxic chemicals manufactured by Bayer-owned Monsanto, that were present in the light fixtures and caulking of a local school.

Plaintiffs Kerry Erickson, Joyce Marquardt, and Michelle Leahy all worked at the Sky Valley Educational Center, in a decades-old facility, where they claim to have suffered serious neurological injuries from prolonged exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as PCBs, from 2011 to 2015.

Before being banned in the 1970’s, PCBs were used for a wide range of industrial purposes, from fire insulation to food packaging, and also in older fluorescent lights and building caulk.

Agrochemical giant Monsanto was the sole US manufacturer of PCB’s, which the Environmental Protection Agency now considers dangerous toxic carcinogens.