By joelshirschhorn medical researcher, analyst at Joel S. Hirschhorn | Telling the truth with good data Published originally on TrialSite News on May. 12, 2022, 9:00 a.m.
A global medical mystery is being aggressively pursued by medical researchers. The core issue is that a relatively small fraction of people despite high exposure to COVID have not gotten ill with COVID infection. Think of health workers in hospitals in contact with many seriously ill COVID patients. Also, members of households that stood out because unlike others in the home who got ill with COVID they did not get infected. The mystery is what explains how highly exposed individuals did not get ill with COVID infection.
There are two main ways of explaining resistance to COVID. One is that some people have strengthened their immune systems by any of a number of actions taken before or during the pandemic. For example, some may have elevated levels of vitamin D in their blood by taking high doses of supplements. The other explanation that appeals to medical researchers is that some people have a genetic makeup that gives them total defense against COVID infection,
TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.
Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.
What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines. Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.
The Last Market: Young Children
While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society.
To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission. Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on.
Demand for Vaccines Wane
But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.
Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.
Some Possible Explanations
Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.
Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”
Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.
Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:
Adults 50 and above
People with comorbidities or other risks
High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)
According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China.
More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.
Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?
The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?
Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.
This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.
Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)
2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.
TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response. TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism
May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.
Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.
What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines. Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.
The Last Market: Young Children
While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society.
To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission. Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on.
Demand for Vaccines Wane
But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.
Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.
Some Possible Explanations
Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.
Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”
Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.
Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:
Adults 50 and above
People with comorbidities or other risks
High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)
According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China.
More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.
Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?
The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?
Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.
This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.
Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)
2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.
TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.
The FDA has finally admitted what we knew all along – the vaccine is not safe. The FDA said it is limiting the availability of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine as it does indeed cause blood clots. The agency also noted that the vaccine presents a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
The health agencies are still pushing the vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. How are they any different? The US government has a long history of punishing Johnson & Johnson for their illegal activities, from asbestos-laced baby powder to cancerogenic sunscreen. Yet, all pharmaceutical manufacturers are exempt from penalty for the COVID-19 vaccine, citing a national emergency.
FDA’s vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said that the risk of death is still better than not getting the jab and said Johnson & Johnson’s version may be used as a last resort. Johnson & Johnson was hoping to rake in $3.5 billion this year from the vaccine alone. All of this comes down to money and control. The government and businesses forced mandates with complete disregard for public health. The talking heads gaslit the world for years into believing anyone who questioned the vaccine was a conspiracy theory lunatic, unfit for society.
They have known the truth all along. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine came into question in April 2021. Here is Fauci maintaining that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was “safe and effective” despite knowing it could be deadly:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 5, 2022 | Sundance
The FDA has limited the use of the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine to only those over 18-years-old due to blood clotting issues. [Press Release Here] Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine is now limited to adults due to the risk of a rare blood clotting syndrome.
FDA – “Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has limited the authorized use of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine to individuals 18 years of age and older for whom other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines are not accessible or clinically appropriate, and to individuals 18 years of age and older who elect to receive the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine because they would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine.” (read more)
WHAT CHANGED? – “The FDA and CDC have continuously monitored for and investigated all suspected cases of TTS reported to VAERS. In an updated analysis of TTS cases following administration of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine that were reported to VAERS through March 18, 2022, the FDA and CDC have identified 60 confirmed cases, including nine fatal cases. The FDA has determined that the reporting rate of TTS is 3.23 per million doses of vaccine administered and the reporting rate of TTS deaths is 0.48 per million doses of vaccine administered.”
Way too much effort has been put into a non-issue in regards to extreme climate change; because the planet’s climate has never been constant since the planet was formed. In general, the temperatures have run from 12 degree C to 22 degrees C with the average around 17 degrees C. Since we are now around 15 degrees C, which is on the cold side of the average, it’s hard for me to see where the problem is. Especially, since more people die from the cold weather then the hot weather and current temperatures are below normal and therefore not a threat.
Then we have CO2 which has run from a high of around 7,000 ppm around 500 million years ago to 420 ppm today, again historically very, very low. And there does not seem to be any correlation between the two. In fact, if you look at the last 65 million years the CO2 dropped from around 800 ppm to below 200 ppm and temperature dropped form 22 degrees C to around 12 degree C around 1650. But then CO2 had been dropping for over 100 million year so where is the correlation?
So now, let’s look at the more current climate. But before we can do that, we must look at where all our information comes from. CO2 started to be actually tracked by NOAA in 1958. Their website is https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ and the CO2 levels are published monthly. There is an annual cycle to the CO2 levels, as in the summer, in the northern hemisphere the CO2 levels go down as the vegetation uses the CO2 as food. Then in the winter, we burn lots of carbon based fuels for heating and the levels go back up. Local temperatures have been recorded since the time of the U. S. civil war but they have only been turned into a global temperature going back to 1880 recently with modern computers by NASA. The estimated global temperatures can be found at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ in their table Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) in text or CSV format. However, they are not published as a temperature but as an anomaly from the average temperature from 1950 to 1980 estimated to be 14 Degrees C. which is odd since it’s in the middle of the range that we are looking at which is not a good practice statistically. The reason I say this is that the calculated global temperatures are re-calculated every month as adjustments are made to the software. The process used in called Homogenization by NASA.
To get the anomaly, you would take the current temperature, say 14.8 degrees C and subtract 14 degrees C leaving .8 degrees C and then multiple that by 100 to give you an anomaly of 80. The NASA LOTI table shows that value for every month from the current back to January 1880. I don’t understand why this is done like that nor why they don’t use kelvin like everyone else would use doing research on the quantity of heat in a subject material. I guess it’s because the temperature changes are so small that it’s hard to show a change relevant to the subject as 80 looks a lot bigger than .8 but we have to work with what we are given. For example, 14.8 degrees C divided by 14.0 degrees C equals 5.7% and 287.95 degrees K divided by 286.15 degrees K = 1.0%. A Note, Kelvin or K is used when making these kinds of calculation is science and engineering.
I have all these values in an Excel spreadsheet in column format by month from the current year back to September 2012, Sadly I didn’t keep the ones back to when I started in 2007 since I didn’t realize, back then, that the values in the table were not fixed and there were changes in them as NASA modified the process used to calculated all the values. There are presently 1,707 values in the LOTI table.
We use the NOAA Co2 value starting in 1958, as is, then use the NASA anomalies from 1958 with an adjustment to determine if there is a reasonable correlation between the two over time. The method used was to create a monthly percent increase for each since 1958 the NOAA data is useable as published. The NASA anomalies need to be adjusted as they don’t represent the actual heat in the atmosphere. The base has to be absolute zero 273.15 K (Kelvin) so we can determine the actual increase in thermal energy in the atmosphere. That is a straight forward calculation which needs no description. Once we have the monthly temperature in degree kelvin, we then calculate the increase in thermal energy from 1958 to the present.
The comparison is then very simple. The first plot shown below as the black plot is the monthly CO2 level in the atmosphere as a percentage increase from 1958. The annual cycle is clearly shown in the Chart. The blue plot is the trend line with a excellent fit with a geometric increase that shows there has been no slowdown in the increase. The equation for the trend is shown in red. The second plot shown below in red (hard to see here) is the monthly heat value of the atmosphere in Kelvin and as percentage increase from 1958 just like CO2. The yellow heat content plot is the trend line with a reasonable fit and the equation for it is shown red at the bottom of the chart. The scales on the chart axes are the same for both plots 95%5 to 150%, so the relationships are correct.
Now since it’s kind of hard to see the temperature changes on Chart 8a as they are so small let’s change the scale on the chart and make a new chart. The new Chart is Chart 8 and the scale on the right side is from 95% 105% the scale on the left side is the same at 95% to 150%. With that change, we can see some movement as shown in Chart 8 on the next page. When you compare the two Charts, you can also see how easy it is to make something look like it is something else.
This chart shows that if nothing changes from what it is now, by 2038 CO2 will have gone up by 145% and the heat in the atmosphere only .5% and that’s both from the base of 1958. Since we are told that the base is 14 degrees C which is actually 387.15 degrees Kelvin, 100.5% will only be 288.6 degrees Kelvin or around 15.5 degrees C. That is still nowhere near the historic average of 17.0 degree s C.
There is however, scientific evidence that this is probably relatively close to what the physics is predicting as what is shown in a paper written by W. A. Wijngaarden and W. Happer and published on June 8 2020 titled Dependence id Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases. It’s a 38 page work with significant ramifications to the validity of the IPCC climate change narrative. The bottom line to this scientific study is that there is NO DANGER to additional CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Any warming that might be caused by CO2 has for the most part already been accounted for. Page 13 from that paper, shown on the next page, clearly shows that the sun’s radiation absorption bands for CO2 are now saturated and there will be no additional effect. The green line is no CO2, the black line is the correct level of CO2, and the red line is double the current level of CO2. As can be clearly seen the black and red lines are virtually identical. In other words, the absorption bands of water in the atmosphere are saturated by the CO2 level around 400 ppm so that even if CO2 goes to 800 ppm it will have little to no effect on global temperature.
In summary, we have shown using two methods that CO2 is not a danger but we will be in great danger if we really try to get rid of Fossil fuels. There are three reasons for this assessment that a realistic engineering assessment of switching from fossil fuels to Solar PV and Wind power is just not realistic.
First, the Green power generation required to replace the existing fossil fuel power generating capacity exceeds the “scarce” raw materials available on the planet to make and maintain them. As shown in the next, three reasons.
Second, the life spans of solar PV and wind power devices are “significantly” less than conventional power plants. So they will need to be replaced constantly.
Third, Solar PV and Wind are both intermittent sources and are not suitable for base load power at the levels required for an advanced technology based economy. The amount of batteries required to smooth the load are also of a relatively short life and would be to be replaced constantly.
Four, The locations for solar PV and Wind generation are generally not were the needs are and they are all in different time zones the Transmission grid will need to be significantly increased to allow for the high voltage flows over long distances.
Then there is the fact that CO2 levels are now below optimum for plant life to use photosynthesis efficiently; the chemical process of converting sun light and CO2 into sugars to make the food they need to grow. CO2 levels above 1,000 ppm would be desirable and anything below 300 ppm CO2 is risky as planets need a minimum of 180/200 ppm CO2 or they die.
COMMENT: The grocers near me have banned plastic bags. Off timing. Grocery bills are more than I’ve ever seen ..ever. I wont buy as much if theres a few bags per trip. We are lucky to own our homes. Climate change or the food crisis? I see it as a new distraction since they talked of banning them for a long time .. so why now?
REPLY: It is not a far-fetched theory to wonder whether the push to eliminate plastics goes beyond the climate change agenda. Grocery stores have begun banning plastic bags at a time when food inflation is in the double-digits, and the supply chain stalemate has dampened availability. Think about it – the typical American will fill up their grocery cart with food. In other nations, they purchase the ingredients they need for a few days instead of going on major grocery hauls. Limiting American consumers to the bags in their possession could lead to fewer items purchased. This would lower the visibility of inflation and overall consumption.
Over the pandemic, Americans became more self-reliant and began cooking at home 49% more, according to the US Grocery Shopper Trends report. The powers that be, such as Bill Gates, have been pushing for a major change in grocery trends by requesting that first-world nations refrain from eating meat. Gates also cites climate change and not his massive investments in farmland and meat alternatives.
The Environment Agency of the UK released a report in 2011 that found reusable cotton and paper bags have a higher carbon footprint than single-use plastics. A cotton bag, for example, would need to be used 131 times to lower its impact on the environment. While no one is saying plastic bags are ideal for the environment, the rush to ban them is not entirely due to climate change concerns. I believe they are also aiming to change consumer habits at the grocery store.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 3, 2022 | Sundance
Previously a federal judge overturned the federal mask mandate for transportation, thereby allowing travelers to make their own choices. The DOJ has appealed that decision after the CDC said it wanted the mask mandate to remain in place. The status of that litigation is unknown.
Today, the CDC has announced a semi-permanent extension of the federal transportation mask mandate with no expiration date noted. [Announcement Here] That means all travelers on airplanes, trains, busses and ridesharing will be required to wear facemasks again, including inside the terminals and operational hubs of those transportation nodes, pending the outcome of the DOJ appeal to the federal court.
CDC Announcement – “At this time, CDC recommends that everyone aged 2 and older – including passengers and workers – properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator over the nose and mouth in indoor areas of public transportation (such as airplanes, trains, etc.) and transportation hubs (such as airports, stations, etc.).
[…] This public health recommendation is based on the currently available data, including an understanding of domestic and global epidemiology, circulating variants and their impact on disease severity and vaccine effectiveness, current trends in COVID-19 Community Levels within the United States, and projections of COVID-19 trends in the coming months.
[…] “CDC continues to recommend that all people—passengers and workers, alike—properly wear a well-fitting mask or respirator in indoor public transportation conveyances and transportation hubs to provide protection for themselves and other travelers in these high volume, mixed population settings. […] Additionally, it is important for all of us to protect not only ourselves, but also to be considerate of others at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and those who are not yet able to be vaccinated. Wearing a mask in indoor public transportation settings will provide protection for the individual and the community.” ~ Rochelle Walensky, CDC Director
If the Biden administration lose the court appeal to reinstitute the mask mandate, this announcement by the CDC would appear to be moot, they couldn’t enforce it. However, if the Biden administration is successful in their appeal, the mandatory mask wearing returns.
Put another way….. If the Biden administration lose the appeal, the people wearing masks will be the COVID worshippers. If the Biden administration win their appeal we all have to wear them.
The mandate created by Joe Biden did not have legal structure. It was a dictatorial fiat that exceeded the capacity of the executive branch to create. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle found the CDC exceeded its statutory authority with the mask mandate and violated the rules that guide CDC regulations. {LINK} After Joe Biden arbitrarily announced the federal transportation mandate, the CDC triggered enforcement of the mask mandate without any required time for public feedback on a new regulation.
Congress could easily write a law authorizing mechanisms for the CDC and TSA to use in enforcement of a federal Transportation mask mandate; but they won’t – because the public doesn’t support it. However, the Biden administration doesn’t care about majority public opinion, they are fine-tuned to push virtue signaling as a political strategy.
The White House is very committed to all their mandates around COVID-19, the mask mandate is no different. From the perspective of the professional political left, the theater of forced mask wearing represents the visible power and authority of government to rule the lives of the irrelevant proles.
Any pesky legal rulings, that seek to reduce or remove the power of government, are viewed by the left as arbitrary and insignificant efforts to block their almighty power of government. They can choose to wear a mask if they want, but that’s not really the issue behind the mask mandate. The true power of the left is in the ability to force everyone to comply to their whims regardless of individual freedom.
The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, will be happy with this position from the CDC today. They worship at the altar of COVID science and use masks as an expression of their sanctimonious feeling of superiority. However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this CDC position may fuel an even more angry response.
Moderna is officially coming for toddlers and infants under five. The company submitted a formal request with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), claiming the vaccine is 51% effective among toddlers under two and 37% effective in the two to five-year-old range. Instead of the standard two-100 microgram doses, the youngest among the population will receive two 25-microgram doses.
“I think it is likely that over time they will need additional doses. But we’re working on that,” Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. Paul Burton stated.
They will continue to force vaccines on everyone in the population. There is no telling the long-term effects of injecting a gene-altering medication into a baby, but Big Pharma is willing to risk lives for profits and government is will risk lives to retain control over a scared and uninformed population. Only 475 children under five have died from COVID, according to the Associated Press. There is absolutely no need for a vaccination for this demographic.
There are reports of babies dying through breast milk contaminated with the vaccination. Countless top doctors have warned against vaccinating children in general. Even the World Health Organization has even admitted that healthy adolescents do not need boosters, despite Pfizer filing a claim to have theirs approved for the five to twelve-year-old kids. Not to be outdone, Pfizer said it will have a vaccine for babies by the summer.
Since parents are reluctant to destroy their child’s development, the powers that be will continue to force mandates. They will push for universal passports to document everyone, including the youngest, most vulnerable members of society. They want us to inject ourselves repeatedly from birth until death for a virus that even Fauci no longer calls a pandemic.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 1, 2022 | sundance
If you are not familiar with Cass Sunstein’s wife, Samantha Power, I would suggest spending some time on any search feature of the internet. Power is the archetype ideological traveler within the academic peer group of the Obama team. Former U.N. Ambassador Power is the person who takes the ideological theory [example Responsibility to Protect (R2P)], and then constructs the mechanisms and network to turn theory into applicable policy.
Samantha put down the filtered Brazilian rainwater coffee this morning and gave a few interviews, that are rather telling of what is going on in the background of the Biden administration. Discussing Ukraine {Direct Rumble Link} Power let it slip that the absence of industrial fertilizer is a good thing because in the spirit of “never letting a crisis go to waste,” the transition of food growing to more “sustainable farming” through organic fertilizer is a key transition for the bigger picture issue of Climate Change. WATCH:
Samantha is the prototype backpack, academic, Birkenstock traveler who all model U.N. types view as the person to emulate. She’s a sustainable algae cake eater, who bridges the space between the Kennedy Center ballroom crowd and the cross-legged, sitting on the grass, NYU commons activists.
A very dangerous mind, with no practical skills beyond very dangerous ideological theory.
The 2011/2012 crisis in Libya represents an outcome of Power’s R2P theory applied. Create equitable freedom for the animals by killing the Zookeeper and removing the cages. The tree dwelling primates are fine, at first, until the big cats run out of deer to eat. The only way to prevent primate slaughter is to supplement and satiate the cats with alternative meat. The primates are now forever dependent on foreign intervention for survival…. and yet the free range believing ideologues take no responsibility for the natural mess and absence of ruminants.
Samantha Power, now in charge of USAID (U.S. Aid and International Development) and a host of Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) who rely on USAID, turns her meddling focus from the middle-east toward the crisis in Ukraine.
Notice how she says weird shit like, [02:53] “what we do Margaret, is to work though our implementing partners. So, er, we have, um, folks who are indirectly on the ground, but who are receiving U.S. taxpayer resources in order to provide everything from flak jackets and helmets, again to those safehouses etc.”
How does a person become “indirectly on the ground” in Ukraine, in order to receive funds?
Oh wait, that’s what we need the U.S. government information, disinformation and language approval bureau to figure out before we can start to talk about it…. or something. Seriously, watch this interview carefully and spot the bureaucratic globbledyspeech. WATCH:
Posted originally on The Rubin Report Published February 27, 2022 33,229 Views
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to PragerU founder Dennis Prager about the dangers of political polarization, why he is a former Democrat, why people think conservatives are evil, and why black workers always do worse with Democratic policies. First, Dennis explains why this period of political tribalism is so concerning and why the political divide may actually be more dangerous than the civil war. He explains why he won’t be leaving California and joining the blue state exodus to states like Florida and Texas. He also explains how he went from a Jimmy Carter voting former liberal to a promoter of conservative values. Next, Dennis shares a GK Chesterton quote that explains why a secular society may not be as good as it sounds and how secularism can lead to new religions like wokeness. He explains how the left no longer believes in science and how he was mocked on “Real Time with Bill Maher” for pointing out that the left now believes men can menstruate. Now only two years later, Bill Maher is attacking things like the pregnant man emoji. Dennis also explains how successful liberals have been at creating the myth of evil Republicans and why his first Republican vote was one of the hardest things he ever did. Finally, Dennis explains how liberal policies like those enacted by LA county DA George Gascón only make crime and public safety much worse. He shares how even an anti-Trump conservative like Jason Riley can see how Trump’s policies reduced black unemployment, yet black voters ignore this reality and continue to vote Democrat. Why do the crimes of the left by the people like Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao get forgotten or ignored and who will pay for the lockdown mistake and COVID tyranny?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 