The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

Author Archives: stuartbramhall

Unknown's avatar

About stuartbramhall

Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.

3 Reasons There’s Something Sinister With the Big Push for Electric Vehicles

Posted on by
8
Electric Vehicles

25 refrigerators.

That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs).

Congressman Thomas Massie—an electrical engineer—revealed this information while discussing with Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, President Biden’s plan to have 50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.

The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.

Massie claims, correctly, in my view, that the notion of widespread adoption of electric vehicles anytime soon is a dangerous fantasy based on political science, not sound engineering.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, large corporations, and celebrities tout an imminent “transition” to EVs as if it’s preordained from above.

It’s not.

They’re trying to manufacture your consent for a scam of almost unimaginable proportions.

Below are three reasons why something sinister is going on with the big push for EVs.

[…]

Reason #1: EVs Are Not Green

The central premise for EVs is they help to save the planet from carbon because they use electricity instead of gas.

It’s astounding so few think to ask, what generates the electricity that powers EVs?

Hydrocarbons generate over 60% of the electricity in the US. That means there’s an excellent chance that oil, coal, or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV.

[…]

Extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations, which only hydrocarbons can provide.

Additionally, EVs require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals—like lithium and cobalt—that companies mine in conditions that couldn’t remotely be considered friendly to the environment.

Analysts estimate that each EV requires around one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a massive amount of toxic waste.

[…]

In short, the notion that EVs are green is laughable.

It’s simply the thin patina of propaganda that governments need as a pretext to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for EVs.

Reason #2: EVs Can’t Compete Without Government Support

For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.

According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.

To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.

And that’s not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.

Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.

Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.

According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.

Without government support, it’s not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.

In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.

It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?

While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.

Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You

EVs are spying machines.

They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.

Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.

Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn’t take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.

Consider this.

The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.

Had the Canadian truckers’ vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.

Here’s the bottom line.

The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.

They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.

That’s why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.

Conclusion

To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.

The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.

But that’s unlikely to happen.

Instead, it’s only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.

If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they’re saving the planet, that would be bad enough.

But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.

Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.

In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.

Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.

Worse, many have become unwitting foot soldiers for this agenda because they have been gaslighted into believing they are saving the planet or acting for the greater good.

This trend is already in motion… and the coming weeks will be pivotal.

That’s precisely why I just released an urgent report on where this is all headed and what you can do about it… including three strategies everyone needs today.

[…]

Via https://internationalman.com/articles/3-reasons-theres-something-sinister-with-the-big-push-for-electric-vehicles/

Republicans Declare War on Mask Mandates

Posted on by
11

By Nick Reynolds

Newsweek

Mask mandates might be a relic of the past.

The federal government eliminated them at the close of the national health emergency declared around COVID-19, citing high levels of vaccinations that made the need to slow the spread of the virus even less prudent. Many businesses followed suit, with voluntary masking requirements in most stores dissipating as more and more people received the vaccine.

But as some schools and medical facilities have begun reinstating them amid a surge of a new strain of COVID-19, Republican lawmakers want them to stay a thing of the past, launching bills aimed at restricting the federal government’s ability to impose similar mandates in the future.

Citing arguments that masks didn’t work to slow the spread of the virus during COVID—which most studies contest—Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance announced plans September 5 to introduce the Freedom to Breathe Act, which would permanently prevent the federal government from reimposing federal mask mandates in the United States.

“We tried mask mandates once in this country. They failed to control the spread of respiratory viruses, violated basic bodily freedom, and set our fellow citizens against one another,” said Vance in a news release announcing the legislation. “This legislation will ensure that no federal bureaucracy, no commercial airline, and no public school can impose the misguided policies of the past. Democrats say they’re not going to bring back mask mandates—we’re going to hold them to their word.”

Then there’s Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, an influential member of the House Republican Conference who has pledged not to vote in favor of any federal budget that included funding for any COVID-19 vaccine or mask mandates.

“That is over,” she told constituents at an August 31 town hall in Floyd County, Georgia. “Even Joe Biden said it was over.”

And in Texas, a new ban on COVID-19 restrictions requiring individuals to wear face masks in public spaces went into effect on September 1 amid a rash of public and private entities across the U.S. reinstated the policy due to a rise in new infections fueled by two new variants of the virus.

“Thanks to Governor Abbott and the hard work of the Texas Legislature, Texas has closed the door on COVID restrictions,” Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, told Newsweek at the time.

While Texas, a deep-red state with a Republican governor, was already unlikely to revive a mask mandate, it’s unclear whether a federal mask mandate is on the table at all. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which oversees federal rulemaking around masking policies, told a Newsweek reporter last Thursday that it currently had no plan to revive COVID-era mask mandates.

There are also no plans to reimpose them in the federal budget, though some Republican lawmakers have remained hung up over COVID-19 vaccine mandates for servicemembers in the United States military.

It’s also unclear whether Vance’s bill will be successful. While the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress is narrowly divided, it still leans toward Democrats, while it is unclear whether the more moderate members of the Republican party would align with Vance on the effort.

[…]

Via https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-declare-war-mask-mandates-1824750

Possible Link Between Cellphones and Higher Breast Cancer Rates

Posted on by
3
breast cancer cellphone women feature

By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

Recent studies show breast cancer is the most common cancer in women under 50, fueling longstanding concerns about a possible link between devices like cellphones and cancer.

Early-onset breast cancer is on the rise in younger women in the U.S., according to two new peer-reviewed studies, leading some experts to wonder if cellphone use could be at least partially to blame.

The authors of an Aug. 16 study in JAMA Network Open looked at the health data from 2010 to 2019 of more than half a million people in the U.S. under 50 who reported having some kind of early-onset cancer.

They concluded breast cancer in 2019 had the highest incidence rate, with 12,649 new cases reported that year.

Meanwhile, the authors of a study published Sept. 5 in BMJ Oncology looked at worldwide cancer trends from 1990-2019. Breast cancer was responsible for the largest number of cases and associated deaths among younger people, with rates of 13.7 cases and 3.5 deaths per 100,000 people, they said.

Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who for more than 40 years has studied trends in cancer and who published more than 200 peer-reviewed articles, said she found the reports “very troubling.”

Davis is the president of Environmental Health Trust (EHT), a scientific research and education nonprofit, and founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences.

She told The Defender, “A trend in cancer cannot prove what is causing it. The trend is simply a fact. So the fact is that cancer among younger Americans, particularly women, is on the rise.”

Indeed, the American Cancer Society in 2022 estimated there were 47,550 cases of breast cancer in U.S. women younger than 50.

“But,” Davis added, “there’s clear compelling evidence that electromagnetic fields [EMFs] accelerate the growth of breast cancer cells.”

EMFs can accelerate growth of breast cancer cells

“We have known for nearly 30 years that EMFs can accelerate the growth of MCF-7 breast cancer cells,” Davis said. “There’s no debate about that.”

According to Davis, MCF-7 is an estrogen receptor-positive cancer cell that has been cultured for many years and is used as a standard assay in the laboratory.

Davis said prior research showed radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by cellphones moves easily through fat and fluid — “and the breast is nothing but fat and fluid,” she said.

Additionally, a 2020 peer-reviewed study found that excessive smartphone use “significantly increased” the risk of breast cancer, with those using cellphones for more than 4.5 minutes before bedtime having a 5.27-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to those using a smartphone for less time.

The study authors said:

“To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to find that excessive smartphone use significantly increased the risk of breast cancer, particularly for participants with a smartphone addiction, who maintained a close distance between the breasts and smartphone, and who had the habit of smartphone use before bedtime.”

Staring at a cellphone screen before bedtime can also suppress the natural release of melatonin, a hormone that plays a role in sleep.

Melatonin appears to protect against breast cancer, Davis said. “We know this most especially from studies of blind women because blind women naturally have very high levels of melatonin and they have half the rate of breast cancer of sighted women,” she said.

Some research, however, suggests more thorough studies must be done before the link between melatonin and decreased risk of breast cancer can be proven.

Davis and several co-authors in February 2023 published a review of the latest science on pediatric health, EMFs and RF radiation in which they noted that RF radiation can act like an endocrine disruptor:

“It appears that non-ionizing RFR has all the classic hallmarks of endocrine disruptors that affect reproduction, development of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis (HPG) and alter normal male and female reproductive endpoints.”

According to Davis, endocrine disruptors can cause “a host of biological consequences, including breast cancer.”

EHT in 2020 collaborated with the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition to create an educational module for K-12 schools on the health impacts of daily RF radiation exposure and ways to reduce one’s exposure, Davis said.

‘We’re going to see a whole cluster of young people with breast cancer’

According to Davis, there have been at least five case reports of women developing breast cancer tumors where they routinely kept their cellphones in their bras.

One of the case report’s authors, Dr. John West, is a former breast surgeon who more than a decade ago predicted there would be an uptick in breast cancer cases.

West told CBS News in Nov. 2012, “If there is a risk and we don’t find out about it for five or ten years from now, we’re going to see a whole cluster of young people with breast cancer.”

West and his co-authors in 2013 published their case report of four women who carried their smartphones in their bras for up to 10 hours a day for several years, and who “developed tumors in areas of their breasts immediately underlying the phones.”

“These cases,” West and his co-authors said, “raise awareness of the lack of safety data of prolonged direct contact with cellular phones.”

In 2016, West wrote a book about breast cancer prevention, “Prevent, Survive, Thrive: Every Woman’s Guide to Optimal Breast Care,” with a chapter entitled, “Your Bra: A No-Phone Zone.”

That same year, Dr. Otis W. Brawley, the ACS’ former chief medical officer, highlighted the potential link between cellphone radiation and cancer in a May 27, 2016, press release citing the National Toxicology Program (NTP) multi-year $30 million study showing “clear evidence” that RF radiation is associated with cancer and DNA damage. He said:

“For years, the understanding of the potential risk of radiation from cell phones has been hampered by a lack of good science. This report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science.”

Brawley said the NTP’s report “marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.”

But the “paradigm shift” Brawley referenced never took hold after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 dismissed the NTP study.

According to Davis, the FDA’s rejection of the NTP study was “deeply flawed” and “deeply hypocritical.”

The FDA in 1999 requested the NTP study cellphone radiation, she said. FDA officials were intimately involved in reviewing the study design plans.

“Then when the results came out and some people didn’t like it, the FDA began to trash talk their own study,” Davis said.

To this date, the FDA still claims there is not enough scientific evidence to link cellphone use to health problems, including cancer.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer worldwide, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with 2.26 million cases in 2020 noted by the World Health Organization.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/breast-cancer-young-women-cellphones-rf-radiation/

Fact Check: New York Times Guide to Fall Vaccines is Disinformation

Posted on by
10
new york times covid vaccine feature

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

The New York Times on Sept. 1 published a “guide to fall vaccine shots,” which included recommending the general public get COVID-19, flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccines, and infants 6 months and older receive COVID-19 shots this fall.

Written by Times senior writer David Leonhardt, the guide warns about rising COVID-19 cases and the approaching flu season, before offering, “The good news is that there are vaccines and treatments that reduce risks from all major viruses likely to circulate this season.”

According to the Times, “This year, we should take a broader approach,” rather than “obsess over COVID.”

Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine — described by the Times as a “vaccine expert” — echoed that appeal. “It’s not only COVID you have to think about,” he said.

Hotez, Nirav Shah, M.D., J.D., principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other public health officials and experts quoted by the Times recommended Americans prepare for the upcoming fall and winter by getting the trio of COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines.

None of these experts, however, addressed any of the potential safety risks posed by these vaccines.

Medical and public health experts who spoke with The Defender took a different view and questioned the Times’ guide, citing concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines for respiratory illnesses.

“Vaccines against respiratory illnesses have failed miserably,” said cardiologist Peter McCullough M.D., MPH. “America is wary of vaccines at this point, wanting to get on with life free of menacing vaccines, and are willing to seek early treatment, which is always the best way to handle infections, vaccinated or not.”

Pediatrician Dr. Liz Mumper, president and CEO of the Rimland Center for Integrative Medicine, told The Defender, “There have been no studies examining the effects of giving RSV vaccine, flu vaccine and COVID vaccine at the same time.”

[…]

Times still pushing vaccine propaganda

According to the Times, “The best defenses against COVID haven’t changed: vaccines and post-infection treatments,” which are “especially important for vulnerable people, like the elderly and immunocompromised.”

The federal government is “on track” to approve updated COVID-19 shots, designed to combat recent variants, in mid-September, the Times reported. Once they are available, “all adults should consider getting a booster shot.”

[…]

Hotez resurrected a claim heard often during 2021 and 2022, telling the Times, “Overwhelmingly, those who are being hospitalized are unvaccinated or undervaccinated.”

Experts who spoke with The Defender disagreed.

Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, citing data from U.K. Public Health, said, “All-cause deaths ages 18+ are disproportionately among vaccinated people, whether one, two or three doses, compared to unvaccinated people.”

“The statistic quoted by Dr. Hotez is false,” Risch said.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said, “The new booster simply hasn’t been tested to affirm any assertion of protection. The original trials on children were laughable as they looked at antibody titers rather than actual disease prevention.”

McCullough told The Defender, “The COVID-19 vaccines have been a safety debacle with record cases of myocarditis, blood clots, stroke, and all-cause mortality.”

Despite the injury and mortality reports and the Times’ admission that the risk of COVID-19 to young children is “very low,” Shah nonetheless recommended children as young as 6 months of age get the COVID-19 booster shots this fall.

“Do you want to see your grandpa … [and] grandma?” Shah asked in the Times. “Are you really sure you’re not going to give COVID to them?”

Experts who spoke with The Defender refuted Shah’s advice.

Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), said “There is no medical justification for a healthy 6-month-old or older child to be vaccinated for COVID-19,” adding:

“There is so little data available on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in children that to give blanket recommendations like Shah is doing creates an unnecessary risk to children’s health.

“We simply do not know enough about the COVID-19 vaccines to make such broad recommendations. Additionally, COVID-19 is highly treatable in children and poses very little risk to a healthy child.”

Mumper told The Defender, “Any official who advocates that children take a vaccine to protect grandparents has not read the medical literature carefully.” She said, “After doing a deep dive on the risks and benefits of COVID vaccines in children, I remain steadfastly opposed to their use in healthy children,” adding:

“Any immunity from COVID shots is short-lived and follows a period of immune suppression. Very worrisome adverse events like inflammation of the heart, triggering autoimmunity, interfering with autonomic functions and reproductive toxicity are well described in the medical literature.”

Not all countries following suit

Some countries began limiting COVID-19 vaccination for children last year. In April 2022, Denmark ended its blanket COVID-19 vaccination recommendation, including for children.

Now, Denmark recommends “booster-vaccination” only for people “aged 50 years and above and selected target groups.”

Earlier in 2022, public health authorities in Sweden and Norway opted not to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for children between the ages of 5 and 11.

Sweden now recommends COVID-19 vaccination only for those 50 and above (18 and above for high-risk groups),  while Norway is still only recommending COVID-19 vaccines for those 65 and older (and as young as 5 for high-risk groups).

In March of this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) said healthy children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years have a “low disease burden” and are therefore low priority for vaccination.

In June, Australian public health officials said Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is “no longer available” for children under 12, and in January, U.K. public health authorities ended their booster program for those under 50.

COVID vaccine recommendations ‘not science, not medicine, not public health’

[…]

CDC data released in September 2022 showed that more than 55% of children between 6 months and 2 years old had a “systemic reaction” after their first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

[…]

Flu vaccines have demonstrated ‘declining efficacy’

According to the Times, “The most immediate step worth considering involves R.S.V.” On Sept. 5, the CDC issued a health advisory warning of rising RSV cases in parts of the U.S., particularly among children and babies.

Last month, the CDC signed off on the first-ever monoclonal antibody vaccine Beyfortus for the prevention of RSV, for babies up to 8 months old.

Also last month, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine for pregnant women, despite concerns raised by some medical experts about premature births identified during clinical trials. In May, the FDA approved Pfizer’s Abrysvo and GlaxoSmithKline’s Arexvy RSV vaccines for people 60 and older.

The Times quoted Ashish Jha, M.D., MPH, former White House COVID-19 adviser and now dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, who said, “If you’re 60 or over, you don’t want to get into November without having an RSV vaccine.”

[…]

Kory, however, told The Defender that the COVID-19 vaccines have made people more susceptible to other respiratory illnesses, like the flu and RSV:

“In my practice, we treat many vaccine-injured patients who are now more susceptible to the flu, RSV and many other viruses. The COVID vaccines cause many to present as if they have an autoimmune disease and now respond with more severe symptoms to common viruses like the flu.”

Risch, meanwhile, said, “Traditional flu vaccines are considered to be safe for most people” and may be a “reasonable” option for them, but “this should be discussed with one’s healthcare provider.”“The flu vaccines seem to have had declining benefit over the last 10-15 years, to the point now that they may confer only a 30% benefit,” Risch added.

[…]

‘Ludicrous’ public health messaging

Shah’s recommendation that children as young as 6 months get a COVID-19 shot this fall follows in a long line of questionable advice and claims disseminated by public health officials, some of which were later contradicted.

In a May 2021 MSNBC interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), said:

“Although you don’t like to see breakthroughs, the fact is, this is one of the encouraging aspects about the efficacy of the vaccine. It protect you completely against infection. If you do get infected, the chances are that you’re going to be without symptoms, and the chances are very likely that you’ll not be able to transmit it to other people.”

Fauci’s statements, however, failed to account for the many examples of breakthrough infections with severe symptoms and hospitalization.

After years of official “safe and effective” claims, in YouTube’s new “medical misinformation” policy introduced Aug. 15, “Claims that any vaccine is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19” are prohibited. Fauci’s videos from 2021, notably, are still up on YouTube.

In April 2020, Fauci said that remdesivir will become the “standard of care” for treating COVID-19. But numerous victims of COVID-19 hospital protocols prescribed by the CDC have come forward in recent months claiming that remdesivir was administered without permission of the patients or their families and contributed to further injury or death.

Similarly, former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in March 2021 “Our data from the CDC today suggests … that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick … can’t transmit it to others.” She doubled down on these statements during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing in June, asserting that her statement “was generally accurate.”

Hooker said these statements were “obviously patently false, as the vaccines distributed in the U.S. at that time [in 2021] were not tested for transmission and there was evidence of ‘breakthrough’ infections even in the clinical trials.”

[…]

Kory criticized the Times’ fall vaccine guide, characterizing it as an example of “disinformation.”

“The New York Times is carrying the disinformation that continues to come from the CDC and other government health agencies,” he said. “This is one of the reasons that the public continues to lose trust in the media and our government.”

As a result, public health officials “create a mockery of how medical and scientific evidence is used to inform patient care decisions and public health policy,” Kory said.

Other experts who spoke with The Defender suggested taking vitamins to boost one’s immune system, rather than a series of vaccinations.

“For the immune system to defend against respiratory viruses, all people should take daily vitamin D to achieve blood levels of 50 or greater,” Risch said. “This is typically 5,000 units per day for a 150-lb person, but can be adjusted up or down according to body weight.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pierre-kory-nyt-guide-fall-vaccine-shots-covid-disinformation/

 

 

Why is There Wood Pulp in School Lunches?

Posted on by
4
kids poisoned by artificial school lunches

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Two Kraft Heinz ready-to-eat prepackaged Lunchables are being added to K-12 school lunch programs across the U.S. this fall
  • Kraft Heinz — which is primarily owned by institutional shareholders, the top four being Berkshire Hathaway, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — is a partner of the School Nutrition Association, and has been pushing to get their wares into the lunch program for some time
  • According to Katie Wilson, executive director of the Urban School Food Alliance, the fact that a processed, packaged food meets school lunch standards points to problems with the federal nutritional guidelines
  • Topping my list of concerns for the Lunchables extra cheese pizza product is the presence of soybean oil, which is loaded with harmful omega-6 linoleic acid (LA). Evidence suggests LA is a key contributor to chronic diseases, as it impairs mitochondrial function and energy production
  • “Vital wheat gluten” is another concern. This is pure gluten, which can contribute to or cause leaky gut. Other questionable ingredients include artificial flavors, preservatives, food coloring and “cellulose powder,” which is a fancy name for refined wood pulp. In addition to being an anticaking agent, wood pulp also provides bulk (cutting down on the amount of “real” ingredients required) and can have a laxative effect in sufficient quantity

The quality of school lunches has been deteriorating for decades, and it just got another downgrade. As reported by CNN,1 two Kraft Heinz ready-to-eat prepackaged Lunchables are being added to K-12 school lunch programs across the U.S. as of this fall semester.

Improved Nutrition?

The school Lunchables have reportedly been reformulated to meet the National School Lunch Program’s (NSLP) nutritional requirements, which include higher grain content and lower sodium, compared to the Lunchables sold in stores.

But if you have even the slightest knowledge about diet and nutrition, you’ll realize that NSLP nutritional requirements really don’t amount to much. They certainly do not guarantee that your children are being well-fed.

Schools are required to offer students five meal components: fruit, vegetable, protein, grain and milk, and students must take at least three, including a fruit or vegetable option, as part of their lunch.

While that seems sound, once you start looking at what qualifies as fruit, vegetable, protein, grain and milk, you quickly realize that what the kids are actually getting is ultraprocessed junk food loaded with artificial ingredients.

Pizza, for example, has been a staple in schools for a long time, with tomato sauce qualifying as “vegetable.” The Lunchables “extra cheesy pizza” isn’t even regular pizza. It’s basically an ultraprocessed imitation of an ultraprocessed junk food.

Not surprisingly, Kraft Heinz is a partner of the School Nutrition Association, and has reportedly been pushing to get their wares into the lunch program for some time.2

Meanwhile, the Kraft Heinz Company is primarily owned by institutional shareholders.3 As of this writing, the top four owners are Berkshire Hathaway, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street4 — the same entities that have a monopoly on the world’s resources in general.

Balanced Nutrition?

Kraft Heinz has also partnered with Del Monte to provide a Lunchables with Fresh Fruit option, where the processed lunch meat and cheese is served with pieces of fruit (apples, pineapple, grapes or clementines) rather than crackers.

According to foodsided.com,5 the fruit-based Lunchables is an effort to create a more “balanced eating school lunch option.”

These products are not being rolled out as part of the school lunch program, however. They’ll be available in grocery stores across the South-Central region of the U.S. this fall, and are being marketed to children who bring their own lunches.

Lunchables Raise Concern Among Child Nutritionists

According to The Washington Post,6 the new Lunchables offerings “could appeal to schools that are struggling with labor shortages in cafeterias and supply chain kinks that have limited their menu options.” However, “many nutrition experts greeted the news with a heaping side of skepticism” — as they well should.

[…]

Plastic Contamination — Another Pressing Concern

Indeed, each Lunchables product comes in a plastic tray with plastic wrap cover, so just how much plastic trash will be added by serving Lunchables to 30 million students, every day of the school year?

Without getting bogged down in actual math, we can conclude it’s going to be quite a lot, so where’s the environmental concern? Aren’t we eliminating livestock and cutting agriculture to save the planet? Shouldn’t we leave the cows and rice paddies alone and eliminate processed foods wrapped in plastic instead?

Both food and water are becoming increasingly contaminated with these toxic bits. Microplastic particles, which are less than 5 millimeters long, are literally clouding the oceans in spots.

Carried along with the ocean’s currents, swirling gyres of “plastic smog”8 now cover about 40% of the world’s ocean surfaces.9 Plastic bits are eaten by fish and other marine life, which are then eaten by us.10

[…]

Pure Garbage

While media report the content of these Lunchables in terms of the amounts of grains, meat/meat alternatives, saturated fat and sodium in them, most nutritionally-aware people know that there’s more to nutrition than that. Just what is in these products?

Here’s the Nutrition Facts label and list of ingredients for the Lunchables Extra Cheesy Pizza (4.2-ounce package) sold in U.S. grocery stores:13

nutrition facts
ingredients

The school lunch program version comes in a 5.05-ounce container and is formulated to contain 2 ounces of meat/meat alternative, 2 ounces of grains, one-eighth cup of red vegetable (tomato sauce), 7 grams of saturated fat and 700 milligrams of sodium.

Aside from those details, I’ve not been able to locate a full list of ingredients for the school version, but I believe it’s reasonable to assume that most of the individual ingredients will be the same as the grocery store version.

Topping my list of concerns for the “pizza” version is the presence of soybean oil, which is loaded with harmful omega-6 linoleic acid (LA). Evidence suggests LA is a key contributor to chronic diseases, as it impairs mitochondrial function and energy production.

“Vital wheat gluten” is another concern. This has been described as “normal wheat flour on steroids.”14 It’s basically pure gluten, which can contribute to or cause leaky gut. Other questionable ingredients include artificial flavors of unknown constitution, sodium benzoate preservative and food coloring.

It’s worth noting that they’re not using real mozzarella cheese but rather two kinds of “cheese product.” The food coloring (apocarotenal) is a yellow-red compound used to give it a familiar yellowish cheese color.

They also add “cellulose powder” as an anticaking agent, which is a fancy name for refined wood pulp.15 Bon Appetit! Wood pulp also provides bulk (cutting down on the amount of “real” ingredients required) and can have a laxative effect in sufficient quantity.

Even Worse Garbage

Taking a look at Lunchables Uploaded, which are sold in stores but not part of the school lunch program, provides an even more revolting read. These 15.12 ounce trays come with an artificially-flavored, artificially- and naturally-sweetened drink, a bag of Cheez It and Trolli gummy candy. And Kraft Heinz wants you to think they’re concerned with “balanced nutrition.”

[…]

Vegetable oils, pure gluten, refined wood pulp, soy, corn syrup, sugar, artificial flavors, artificial colors, nitrites, preservatives and artificial sweeteners — this is what passes for “food” for growing children whose development and IQ depend on proper nutrition. It’s beyond sad. And it certainly helps to explain the explosion of chronic diseases in childhood.

Processed Food Diets Are Deadlier Than Smoking

Research has shown refined high-carb diets are as risky as smoking, increasing your risk for lung cancer by as much as 49%,17 while other estimates suggest processed foods kill more people prematurely than cigarette smoking.18

Many studies have also demonstrated that the more processed a food is, the worse it is for your health, and more than $1 trillion is spent on treating junk food-related diseases in the U.S. each year.19

Processed foods promote a wide variety of chronic health problems, including obesity,20 cardiovascular diseases, Type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and cancer.

A 2018 study published in BMJ,21 which included 104,980 participants who were followed for an average of five years, found that each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food intake raised the cancer rate by 12%. This works out to nine additional cancer cases per 10,000 people per year. The risk of breast cancer, specifically, went up by 11% for every 10% increase in ultraprocessed food.

Processed foods also raise your risk of premature death,22,23,24,25,26 which makes sense, considering how health issues like heart disease and cancer can shave years, if not decades, off your life span.

French research27 published in 2019 found that for each 10% increase in the amount of ultraprocessed food consumed, the risk of premature death rose by 14%.

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/09/06/kids-poisoned-by-artificial-school-lunches.aspx

 

 

Democrats Wage Groundless “Lawfare” Against Trump

Posted on by
3

Red Fire

Internationalist 360°

It is scarcely an exaggeration to state that the United States of America (US) is in danger of becoming a “banana republic”. The leading contender for the nomination of President for the Republican party in the 2024 elections – Donald Trump – is currently facing four indictments ultimately imposed on behalf of the Democratic party presidential administration of Joe Biden. Even without a thorough investigation, it is plain to see that these four indictments are only “crimes” using the wildest interpretation of legal theory imaginable. Vast numbers of Americans are viewing these attempts to have Trump charged with “offences” as blatantly political, and a not-so-subtle attempt to prevent by far the leading opposition candidate from running in the elections next year. As Trump has only served one term as President (2016-2020), he is constitutionally entitled to serve a second term if elected.

Partisan lawfare

The four indictments levied against Trump are an act of lawfare – the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimise an opponent, or to deter an individual’s use of their legal rights.[1] The fact that this is being used not by a corporation against some activists, but by one of the major political parties in the US against its rival – threatens at the very least a constitutional crisis if it proceeds. The first indictment stems from the paying of hush money by Trump to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged the pair had an extra-marital affair prior to 2016. From this stem 34 felony charges (which is actually just the same charge repeated 34 times) for supposedly falsifying business records in order to suppress negative news stories about this issue ahead of the 2016 election.[2] Yet the paying of hush money in itself is not a crime in the US. The prosecution has to somehow prove that the intention of this payment was in relation to the 2016 election, and not for any other reason. Needless to say, it is almost impossible to determine the state of mind of either Trump or his lawyers or accountants at the time this payment was supposedly made.

The second indictment relates to charges that Trump supposedly endangered national security by retaining classified documents and taking them to his residence at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office in 2020. The charges have also been weighed against Carlos De Oliveria, Trump’s manager of the estate.[3] This is despite some evidence that former US President Barack Obama took 33 million pages of documents with him when he left the White House, many of them classified.[4] The notion that Trump engaged in “wilful retention of national defence information”, “corruptly concealing a document or record”, or a “conspiracy to obstruct justice” is beyond anything that can be considered plausible. In addition, as President at the time, it is likely that Donald Trump himself had the power and authority to both classify and de-classify records relating to his administration. It is reasonable to assume that Presidents taking some records and personal effects with them when they leave office is standard practice, rather than some kind of aberration.

The third indictment brought by the Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith relates to a supposed “conspiracy to defraud the United States”, a “conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding” and a count of “conspiracy against rights”.[5] The prosecutors are claiming – absurdly – that Trump attempted to overturn the results of the November 2020 Presidential Election and undermine America’s democracy! This is stretching the outer limits of credibility. For one thing, there is an abundance of evidence of fraudulent practices carried out during the election, even just in the one state of Michigan.[6] For another thing, even if we assume that the election was entirely legitimate (despite volumes of evidence to the contrary) it is of course entirely legal to object to an election count, especially if you were one of the candidates. This has been done many times in US history, and the Democrats themselves have a history of objecting to state and federal election results, especially Hilary Clinton herself and Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.[7]

A fourth indictment has been laid against Trump and 18 others by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, in relation to “racketeering” with regard to the dubious loss of Georgia to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (RICO) Act is invoked, a federal law that penalises the activities of individuals engaging in organised crime.[8] In other words, a law which was first formulated in order to target the Mafia is now being hurled against Trump. This is despite numerous videos surfacing of highly irregular practices taking place by election workers in Georgia during the 2020 election, including the feeding of the same ballots through tabulating machines multiple times,[9] and the pulling of suitcases full of ballots from under tables and running them through machines after telling other observers that counting had stopped for the night.[10]

Election interference

None of this is to validate the politics of Donald Trump or the Republican party, which ultimately provide no solutions for working people at a time of systemic crisis. Yet the fact that the Democrats and the liberal left are remaining silent on what is an overt use of state power for unmasked political ends is more than revealing. To say virtually nothing while the leading opposition candidate in a US Presidential Election is likely being arrested and even jailed on spurious charges exposes them as complicit in one of the most undemocratic manoeuvres ever undertaken. Plus, there is a virtual corporate media blackout on the substantial evidence accumulating of barely concealed corruption of Joe Biden himself and his son Hunter.[11] In addition, evidence has since come to light confirming the suspicion that the Democratic administration of Joe Biden was behind the removal of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, for his neutral stance towards the NATO proxy war in Ukraine.[12] Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken then broke records for hypocrisy in welcoming “free and fair elections”[13] in Pakistan, while Imran Khan remains in jail![14]

After years of complaining about non-existent election interference by Russia in in the 2016 US Presidential election, the Democrats themselves are now engaging in election interference par excellence – through the attempted jailing of the likely leader of their main opponent party. Yet this plan is backfiring spectacularly, with Trump way out in front in the Republican primary polling. At the end of August, Trump is far and away the most popular with 50.3%. Ron De Santis is the second most popular, but only has 14.8%. Vivek Ramaswamy has 9.2%, Nikki Haley has 5.6% and Mike Pence has 4.4%.[15] In other words, it is no contest. And with each indictment the Democrats register against Trump, his popularity amongst Republican voters seemingly increases even further. When Donald Trump was booked at the Fulton County Jail in Georgia, his mug shot was emblazoned on several pieces of merchandise in an effort to further raise funds for the election campaign. The result was that some 7.1 million dollars was raised within 48 hours.[16]

The Democrats, backed either silently or loudly by the woke left, have used capitalist state power to unjustly prosecute participants in the January 6, 2021 protest in Washington, which was attended but hardly led by Donald Trump. Ludicrously labelled an “insurrection” by a liberal led media, this protest was against what was perceived to be large scale electoral fraud in the November 2020 presidential election – for which there is ample evidence.[17] The central demand for this demonstration was “Stop the Steal” or even the more moderate “Audit the Vote”.[18] However, even if the 2020 election was  entirely legitimate with every vote cast validated, people obviously should still have the right to question the results, call for a recount, or protest about what they believe to be the case. This is especially the case for candidates who ran in the election. What is more, all avenues should be open for a legal challenge to the election process, for those who have the resources to do so.

The depths to which the Democrats and the US state have plunged to prevent Donald Trump – or anyone – from even questioning the result of an election are bewildering. The attempted RICO indictment on Trump is also being used to pursue four of Trump’s lawyers on felony charges for heading up a case to persuade officials that the 2020 Election was marred by irregularities and therefore should not be certified.[19]

[…]

The collapse of capitalist democracy

Much of the so-called left caught a bad case of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, and many are still afflicted by it. That is, a pathological hatred of Trump which is so intense that it distorts political judgement and even a rational assessment of the issues. Some of the acts of Trump in power were as criminal as many Democratic presidents before him, such as the assassination of Iranian Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani,[21]

[…]

Domestically, Trump did succumb to pressure with the fraudulent “Covid-19 pandemic” by authorising “Operation Warp Speed”,[25] which accelerated the rollout of what became potentially deadly vaccines.[26] However, Trump backed away from pushing down hard on Covid political repression, and now cannot be trusted by the US ruling class to once again enforce any form of “health” totalitarianism.

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2023/09/05/democrats-wage-groundless-lawfare-against-trump/

 

What’s Really in the Magna Carta?

Posted on by
Reply

Episode 3 What’s Really in the Magna Carta?

1215: Years That Changed History

Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)

Film Review

The Magna Carta was written in Latin, like all 13th century English documents. It had 63 clauses, with most concerning minor contemporary disputes. All provide valuable insight into daily life in medieval England

Among the most important:

Clause 1: Declares the Catholic church shall be free from rom royal interference and that King John and all his heirs will faithfully follow the directives laid out in the document.

Clause 2: Require the heirs of a deceased earl will pay an inheritance tax of 100 pounds for the right to inherit his land. The heirs of a knight will pay a 100 shilling inheritance tax.

Clause 3: Stipulates underage heirs are exempt from inheritance tax.

Clause 8: Stipulates that no widow shall be required to remarry against her will and that all widows with title to royal lands must have royal consent to remarry.

Clause 10 and 11: Establishes that Christians in debt to Jews owe no interest if they die and that, in some cases, the debt itself is erased.

Clause 13: Stipulates London and all other cities, borough towns and ports shall enjoy all their ancient liberties and free customs.

Clause 23: Stipulates the king won’t compel villages or individuals to build bridges over rivers except for those who have traditional obligations to do so.

Clause 31: Prohibits any royal official to take wood from a nobleman’s estate without his consent.

Clause 33: Agrees to the removal of all fish weirs (traps) from the Thames, the Medway and owing rivers (owing to damage they cause boats)

Clause 35: Demands weights used in commerce be standardized, as well as measures of wine, ale and corn and standard widths for dyed cloth.

Clause 38: Stipulates that no official can bring someone to trial without producing credible witnesses.

Clause 39: Stipulates that no free man is to be arrested, imprisoned, dispossessed of lawfully possessed property, outlawed, exiled, or in any other way ruined except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

Clause 40 Stipulates that justice can neither be sold or denied.

Clause 50: Prohibits any kinsmen of Gerard de Athée to ever hold office.*

Clause 51: Creates an official council of the 25 barons who forced the king to agree to the Magna Carta and establishes processes for replacing them when they die.

Clause 54: Stipulates no one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of anyone other than her husband.

Clauses 56-59 Clarify circumstances in which Welsh persons* are to be subject to Welsh law, English or the laws of the Marches (the boundary lands between Wales and England). It also calls for the return of royal Welsh and Scottish hostages King John was holding at court (to guarantee the peace).**

*Gerard was an English nobleman who lost his French estate after the French king reclaimed it. King John had appointed him and a number of his cousins to public office in Britain. All were notorious for demanding bribes.

**England was still continuously at war with both Wales and Scotland, and the Welsh and Scottish leaders whose offspring were being held hostage had allied themselves with the 25 barons. Royal hostages risked being murdered if either Welsh or Scottish warriors attacked English troops.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/12392969/12392976

University Of Wisconsin Investigated By House Republicans Over ‘Dangerous Gain-Of-Function’ Research

Posted on by
8

MADISON, WI - OCTOBER 12: An outside view of Bascom Hall on the campus of the University of Wisconsin on October 12, 2013 in Madison, Wisconsin.

Photo by Mike McGinnis/Getty Images.
By Leif Le Mahieu

DailyWire.com

House Republicans announced an investigation on Friday into gain-of-function research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that they said could be “dangerous.”

The letter was sent by Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) to UW Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin requesting information on the university’s gain-of-function research and any information on if the university had worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology or on any coronavirus projects.

The letter pointed to previous problems identified with gain-of-function research at the university, but the university has said that the controversial research is “needed and highly regulated.”

Wenstrup said that he disagreed with the university’s assertion that there was enough regulation on gain-of-function research, saying that previous use of gain-of-function research at the university proved otherwise.

“UW has already shown it has the capabilities to modify pathogens and make them more dangerous. In 2011, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka revealed to the world that he had modified the deadly avian H5N1 influenza virus so it could spread between ferrets. This experiment enabled the bird virus to spread more easily among mammals, particularly ferrets which most closely mimic human response to the flu. The H5N1 virus is considered a ‘potential pandemic pathogen,’ which through modification or handling could cause another global pandemic,” Wenstrup wrote.

The letter also referenced several instances where gain-of-function research was being conducted at the university and scientists working on the projects ended up in quarantine. In one instance, a researcher pricked their finger with a needle that had engineered high pathogenic avian influenza on it and had to have their family stay at a hotel while quarantining at home.

In response to these reports, some Republican lawmakers in the state have moved to ban gain-of-function research. Rep. Elijah Behnke, Rep. Ty Bodden, and Sen. André Jacque are working on a bill that would ban “institutions of higher education from conducting gain of function research on potentially pandemic pathogens, requiring reporting of the intention to conduct research on potentially pandemic pathogens, and providing a penalty.”

The university has pushed back on the notion that the research is problematic, saying that it instead important for the public’s safety.

“The ability to safely study harmful viruses, bacteria and other pathogens is critically important for protecting public health and the food supply,” UW spokeswoman Kelly Tyrrell told Wisconsin Health News. “UW-Madison is committed to ensuring that its researchers who work with high-risk pathogens have safe and secure laboratories and receive training and certification to ensure their investigations are conducted safely.”

Several federal government agencies believe that COVID likely escaped from a lab in China, potentially as they were conducting gain-of-function research on the coronavirus.

[…]

Via https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-wisconsin-investigated-by-house-republicans-over-dangerous-gain-of-function-research

Admitting to Lack of COVID Face Mask Evidence, Fauci Wants Us to Wear Them Anyway

Posted on by
9

Dr. Anthony FauciAP

New York Post

Dr. Anthony Fauci flip-flopped once again on masking as a means to tamp down COVID-19 as he admitted that a wide-ranging study found that face masks made no difference in the course of the pandemic.

“I am concerned that people will not abide by recommendations,” Fauci told CNN’s Michael Smerconish Saturday in a segment flagging a rise in COVID cases nationwide.

Federal agencies and state and local governments decreed onerous mask mandates for airplanes, schools, public transit, restaurants, workplaces and more starting in 2020 — thanks largely to Fauci, the public face of the nation’s official COVID response.

As the White House’s chief medical adviser, Fauci gave conflicting advice on the efficacy of masking, first saying it was unnecessary for the general public, then that “universal wearing of masks is the most practical way to go.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci flip-flopped once again on masking as a means to tamp down COVID-19 as he admitted that a wide-ranging study found that they made no difference during the pandemic.

As recently as this May, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said that unvaccinated children still should mask up when playing with friends.

But in February, a major study from the Cochrane Library found that wearing them was pointless.

“There’s still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic,” Tom Jefferson, the study’s lead author, said in February.
Federal agencies and state and local governments decreed onerous mask mandates for airplanes, schools, public transit, restaurants, workplaces and more starting in 2020.AFP via Getty Images

“There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop.”

Confronted with Jefferson’s quotes, Fauci backtracked.

“When you’re talking about the effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data are less strong,” he admitted.

“But there are other studies, Michael, that show at an individual level, for individuals,” they might be protective, he said.

Mask and vaccine mandates have become a hot-button issue in the Republican presidential primary.

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2023/09/02/fauci-admits-lack-of-covid-mask-evidence-but-still-wants-us-to-wear-them/

U.S. Spy Agencies Launching ‘Smart Clothing’ Under Guise of ‘Better Health Monitoring’

Posted on by
3

By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

According to the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, “SMART ePANTS could revolutionize the Internet of Things by collecting data to help intelligence, medical and sports commmunities.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) on Aug. 22 announced that the IC’s advanced research and development arm, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), would develop its computerized clothing program — Smart Electrically Powered and Networked Textile Systems, or SMART ePANTS — over the next three-and-a-half years.

The government’s SMART ePANTS program works to create clothing with “integrated audio, video, and geolocation sensor systems that feature the same stretchability, bendability, washability, and comfort of regular textiles.”

Items slated for production include shirts, pants, socks and underwear.

Credit: SMART e-PANTS presentation, page 25

IARPA, in partnership with the Naval Information Warfare Center, Pacific, awarded research contracts to develop and manufacture the computerized clothing totaling over $22 million to Nautilus Defense and Leidos, Inc., according to an Aug. 9 Pentagon announcement.

SRI International, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Areté received undisclosed amounts to develop the technology, according to an article in The Intercept.

Investment giants Vanguard and Black Rock — which benefited from the sale of COVID-19 vaccines and have ownership stakes in technology companies developing vaccine passports and digital wallets — are listed among Nautilus Defense’s and Leidos’ top investors.

SMART ePANTS Program Manager Dawson Cagle, Ph.D., who traced his inspiration for the program to a desire for better health-monitoring options for his diabetic father, said in the recent press release, “IARPA is proud to lead this first-of-its-kind effort for both the IC and broader scientific community which will bring much-needed innovation to the field of ASTs [Active Smart Textiles].

An article published in January in PubMed hyped the potential of electronic textiles as a “new age of wearable technology for healthcare and fitness solutions,” touting their uses in products as varied as diapers, masks and bedding, and for such applications as “monitoring health conditions, treating chronic diseases, rehabilitation, and improving health and social lifestyles.”

“SMART ePANTS could revolutionize the Internet of Things by collecting data to help intelligence, medical and sports commmunities,” wrote the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.

But critics — including Ted Claypoole, legal expert and cyberspace law committee chair for the American Bar Association — said IARPA’s program raises major “obvious” privacy concerns.

Claypoole told The Defender that fabrics being developed by the IC are likely “not just for keeping our people safe, but also for finding and following smart-fabric wearers who do not know they are being followed.”

The development of smart fabrics and computer wearables is not a new effort, he said.

In their book, “Privacy in the Age of Big Data: Recognizing Threats, Defending Your Rights, and Protecting Your Family,” Claypoole and Theresa Payton traced commercial efforts to create smart clothing over the past decade, including a ski jacket with earphones in the hood and input devices on the sleeve that connect to the wearer’s phone via bluetooth.

However, the fact that these smart wearables are being designed by the IC is particularly worrisome to Claypoole:

“The technology, when used by the government, opens a new level of intrusion that raises serious Constitutional concerns. Will the government need a warrant to anonymously track people using these fabrics? It should, but that determination will need to be made by courts over time.”

‘I question whether any of this is legal’

W. Scott McCollough — Children’s Health Defense (CHD)’s chief litigator for the organization’s electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cases — shared Claypoole’s concerns.

“While the person choosing to wear the computerized clothing at least has given some kind of consent, all those around that person have no say at all,” McCullough said.

“I question whether any of this is legal,” McCollough added. “The technology will gather biometric data from those nearby, as well as capture all audio and visual data. There are states where all-party consent is required for this.”

Nicole de Haay, an IARPA spokesperson, told The Intercept that IARPA programs are “designed and executed in accordance with, and adhere to, strict civil liberties and privacy protection protocols.”

“IARPA performs civil liberties and privacy protection compliance reviews throughout our research efforts,” she added.

The IARPA did not elaborate further on how it would ensure that citizens’ privacy is not breached.

Computerized clothing likely to exacerbate negative health impacts of EMR

Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of the CHD’s EMR work, pointed out that computerized clothing also raises potential health concerns.

“As with all new technology that is being sold as exciting and new,” she said, “there are concerns and drawbacks. We know about the negative health impacts of EMR. Having this technology so close to the body could pose additional health risks.”

Moreover, Eckenfels-Garcia added, “SMART ePANTS is a step closer to the merger between humans and technology. This technology, with its many sensors, makes you part of the Internet of Things, which is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda.”

Annie Jacobsen, author of “The Pentagon’s Brain,” about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, pointed out that SMART ePANTS’s developments could usher in troubling new forms of government biometric surveillance.

“They’re now in a position of serious authority over you,” Jacobsen told The Intercept. “In TSA, they can swab your hands for explosives. Now suppose SMART ePANTS detects a chemical on your skin — imagine where that can lead.”

U.S. spy agencies spend billions — and want to spend more

IARPA noted the “smart” clothing could “assist personnel and first responders in dangerous, high-stress environments, such as crime scenes and arms control inspections without impeding their ability to swiftly and safely operate.”

In addition to running IARPA, the ODNI also oversees the National Intelligence Program which in 2022 was given $65.7 billion of taxpayer money by Congress. For its 2023 and 2024 budgets, the program asked Congress for $67.1 and $72.4 billion, respectively. These amounts are not yet approved.

The ODNI director, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, serves as the head of the U.S. Intelligence Community by advising the president, vice president, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council on intelligence matters related to national security.

‘We need an electronic privacy bill of rights’

According to John Whitehead, a civil liberties attorney and author, we have already moved into a system of total surveillance. The government’s funding of computerized clothing that spies on its citizens is yet another example of this, he told The Defender.

Whitehead said that the FBI already collects samples of citizens’ DNA.

“Supposedly, the police say they are doing their job to collect this information and that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Well, that’s a stupid argument,” he said, adding that the courts are always behind when it comes to technology.

Whitehead said:

“Most judges do not understand it. Most are so either pro-government or pro-police that they’re going to do anything to get around [saying that it is unconstitutional].

“What we need now in this government is an electronic privacy bill of rights.”

Whitehead is working with a number of law firms to develop the concept of a legal document that “really clearly” protects citizens from electronic privacy violations of this kind.

Realistically, there is no way to escape surveillance, according to Whitehead. “The only hope we have is if enough people will get vigilant for freedom and we can establish some kind of electronic privacy bill of rights that will limit what these people can do,” he said.

“Education precedes action, so I’m telling people to get educated about what’s going on and understand this,” he added.

Watch IARPA’s program manager discuss SMART ePants: