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.

USDA Releases New Hemp Handbook As Agency Works To Rebuild A Post-Prohibition Seed Bank

Posted on by
6

Photo by Brendan Cleak 2017

As the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) works to rebuild a government seed bank for hemp that was destroyed during prohibition, the agency is issuing updated guidance on how to identify, describe and evaluate different varieties of the plant.

USDA’s latest version of its Hemp Descriptor and Phenotyping Handbook, released earlier this summer, is the agency’s deepest dive yet into the different forms and qualities of hemp. Intended to help researchers better differentiate between hemp varieties, the new document includes all sorts of details on the morphology, yield, cannabinoid content, oil production, seed viability, fiber quality, pathogen resistance and various other traits.

The eventual goal is to allow users of the genetic repository, including hemp scientists and breeders, to more fully understand the range of hemp varieties and and select them for various applications.

As USDA puts it, “Robust, reliable and high-dimensional data generated from these phenotyping efforts will empower conservation of hemp genetic diversity and aid selection of materials with unique trait combinations for breeding programs.”

The agency also maintains so-called germplasms for various other crops. Hemp is playing catch-up with other agricultural commodities, however, given that the plant was only federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.

USDA’s Plant Genetics Resources Unit (PGRU) coordinates the genetic repository in Geneva, New York, collecting and exchanging samples with both domestic and foreign sources. Information gained through the phenotyping efforts will be publicly available through USDA’s Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Some hemp samples have already been posted to the database.

USDA first published its hemp phenotyping handbook in September 2021. The new update, released in July, is being referred to as “version 3.0” of the document.

In addition to clarifying details throughout, USDA has expanded sections on pathology, seed evaluation and fiber quality in the latest version. The agency has also added new protocols around feral collection, seed threshing, tissue cultures, gathering pollen and other details, and it says it will continue to update procedures as better methodologies emerge.

One new resource is a video instructing hemp farmers on how to build and use a Ghostbusters-like backpack vacuum, which USDA says can collect up to 10 grams of cannabis pollen in less than a minute.

As the agency describes:

“These resources will be backed-up at the ARS National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation, regenerated, monitored, and maintained with best management practices, so that high quality germplasm can be distributed to researchers and breeders within the hemp community. Vulnerable or threatened genetic resources for hemp wild relatives and cultivars will be safeguarded so that these critical sources of genes for hemp research and breeding are widely available. In addition, new genetic resources for hemp that might be suitable for U.S agricultural systems will be introduced.”

USDA has been promoting the hemp market in a number of ways, including recently teaming up with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to host farmers for an educational event focused on cultivating cannabis in a “bio-based” economy.

The department also recently shared the success story of an Indiana-based hemp farm, touting how the agency offered financial and technical assistance to help the business to maximize its output of high-quality CBD oil.

USDA also renamed a trade advisory committee to prominently feature hemp among a select group of specialty crops—and doubled the number of hemp industry representatives on its federal trade advisory panels—reflecting the agency’s understanding of cannabis as a uniquely valuable commodity.

Nevertheless, the hemp sector took a major economic hit last year, according to an analysis from USDA that showed the crop’s value drop precipitously. Stakeholders have largely attributed the downturn to a lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations on marketing hemp derivative products, such as CBD oil, but FDA has insisted it needs Congress to enact such rules.

Bipartisan lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced companion bills this session that aim to reduce regulatory burdens for farmers that grow industrial hemp for non-extraction purposes.

[…]

Via https://www.marijuanamoment.net/usda-releases-new-hemp-handbook-as-agency-works-to-rebuild-a-post-prohibition-seed-bank/

Animal and Plant Protein Sources Aren’t Equal

Posted on by
3
protein sources are not equal

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Protein is the primary building block for muscle and muscle loss is associated with a loss of independence and risk of premature death. Data show that animal protein is more bioavailable and provides more essential amino acids than plant protein
  • The Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses an ounce-equivalent standard portion to compare nutritional content, which data suggest may not be accurate. The bioavailability of amino acids is an important consideration and one researcher suggests the data may call into question the recommendation to eat more plant-based foods
  • For multiple reasons, the push to eat more plant-based foods is not sustainable as it doesn’t provide the needed nutrition and leads to nutritional deficiencies. Fake meat products are also metabolically hazardous, as they are created with vegetable fats and raise greenhouse gas emissions
  • Fake foods are the very definition of junk food. A society that relies on fake foods for nutrition can be easily controlled through the supply chain. A healthier choice for you and the environment is real, grass fed meat that has proven to produce a negative net total carbon footprint

Maintaining your muscle mass as you age is an integral part of staying healthy and independent. A 2023 study1 evaluated protein intake in young and older adults, two populations that historically have challenges in consuming protein-based foods. The data indicated that not all protein sources offer the same health benefit.

After reaching your 40s, you can lose roughly 1% of muscle mass each year, which corresponds to a 1% to 3% reduction in strength.2 Losing muscle is associated with a loss of independence in the elderly and a downward decline in health, including the risk of premature death.

Building muscle is a complex process that requires two vital foundational factors. The first is resistance training or muscle strengthening exercises that help to strengthen and build muscle. The second is protein that your body uses to build that muscle. It turns out that the debate over plant- versus meat-based diets must also include whether both diets can adequately feed muscle development.

You can determine your ideal protein intake by multiplying your lean body mass in pounds by 0.6 to determine the low range and 0.8 to determine the high range. Your lean body mass is what is left over after you subtract your body fat. So if you are 20% body fat your lean body mass would be your weight times 0.8.

All Protein Is Not Created Equal

Research scientists from Purdue University3 completed the study4 comparing 2-ounce equivalents of animal-based foods against plant-based sources. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses an ounce-equivalent (oz-eq) portion to compare nutritional content.

For example, a 1 oz-eq of protein is equal to one whole egg, 1 ounce of meat, a fourth-cup of beans or a half-ounce of nuts. Wayne Campbell, Ph.D., was the primary investigator and is a professor in the department of nutrition science at Purdue University.

He suggests that the basis for equating plant- and meat-based protein sources as equivalent means they have a nutritional content that is used similarly within the body, and yet this is not clear.5 In addition to the different nutrient content, including protein quality and quantity, there is also limited information about how the body processes different types of protein foods in a mixed meal.

The researchers were interested in analyzing this question in two populations. The first were younger adults who historically lack variety in their diet and the second were older adults whose diet may contain poor quality sources of protein despite their nutritional needs.

The researchers gathered 30 young adults and 25 older adults for an investigator-blinded, randomized crossover trial. Each participant completed four sessions during which they ate a meal with 2 oz-eq of either whole eggs, unprocessed pork, black beans or sliced almonds.

The researchers measured plasma essential amino acids at baseline, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300 minutes after eating. The data showed that the age of the participant did not affect the bioavailability of the essential amino acids in all four protein food groups tested. In both age groups, pork yielded greater essential amino acid bioavailability and pork and eggs yielded greater bioavailability than black beans and almonds.

The researchers concluded from the data that the oz-eq used by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans does not provide an equivalent amount of bioavailable essential amino acids in younger or older adults.

Gavin Connolly, Ph.D., was the clinical trials project manager and is a research associate in the department of nutrition science and gerontology at Purdue University. He notes that bioavailable essential amino acids are linked with the ability to build body protein or muscle and suggests, “This is an important consideration for muscle and whole-body health and physical function across the life course.”6

The authors also suggest that the findings have public health nutrition guidance implications, and Campbell goes so far as to say, “These results are also pertinent to the DGA’s recommendation to consume more plant-based foods.”7

Push to Eat Green Is Not Sustainable

Data from this study are yet another indication that plant-based and lab-produced meat substitutes are not sustainable options. Even at an early age, children need protein. Initially, this is supplied through breast milk, but once children move on to table food, there is a significant health benefit to adding whole foods to their diet, but not restricting them to a plant-based diet.

Although meat substitutes seek to look and taste like meat, they are not. One study8 of Polish children between the ages of 5 and 10 years analyzed body composition, cardiovascular risk and micronutrient status in children who were vegetarian and vegan as compared to omnivores.

The study claimed that the vegan diet was associated with a healthier cardiovascular risk profile based largely on lower levels of LDL cholesterol, which is not a good indicator of cardiovascular health.

Yet, these same children had an increased risk of nutritional deficiencies, lower bone mineral content and were shorter by about 3.15 centimeters or 1.2 inches. The researchers called this “concerning,” and wrote:9

“Our data suggest that restriction of animal-based foods could prevent children from achieving optimal height or bone mineral status and could lead to selected nutritional deficiencies. The shorter height of children consuming PBDs [plant-based diets] may have mixed implications for long-term health.”

Fake meat products are metabolically hazardous as they use vegetable fats to replace animal fats which are devoid of important vitamins and loaded with the dangerous omega-6 fat, linoleic acid. Although the push to eat fake food is reportedly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment, it is only a formula for disaster.

A 2022 study10 demonstrated that ultraprocessed foods already account for 36% to 45% of total diet-related biodiversity loss and up to one-third of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the amount of processed fake food would only drive these percentages higher.

For all the lip service that’s paid to “equity,” increasing consumption of processed foods like fake meat and lab-produced meat products will worsen economic inequalities as it redirects money away from small farmers and independent homesteaders to transnational corporations that rely on underpaid workers.

Lab-Produced Meat Alternatives Are Junk Food

Additionally, fake meat products are the very definition of ultraprocessed foods, which are “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes (hence ‘ultraprocessed’).”11 According to this 2019 study, ultraprocessed foods already make up more than half of the energy consumed in high-income countries such as the U.K., Canada and the U.S.

By contrast only one-fifth to one-third of the total caloric intake in middle income countries came from ultraprocessed foods. Should globalists be successful in pushing a fake food diet, that percentage will rise precipitously.

In an effort to get you hooked on fake meat, the products are marketed as healthier and better for the environment. Added to this, Impossible Burger and Beyond Burger have nearly the same amount of fat and calories as real beef burgers. They also have more processed sodium and as a reporter at NBC News so succinctly pointed out:12

“If eating more realistic fake meat was about health, the offerings would be far lower in salt content, contain fewer calories and have a bit less dietary fat. None of them do, because the point was never to live up to the marketing of healthier eating. It was to simply act as a smooth replacement for the meat we worried about eating in our day-to-day lives.”

[…].

A 2019 paper14 demonstrated that if there were health benefits from eating less beef, they were minimal. The researchers concluded there was “low to very low” evidence that red meat triggered health problems. When you choose your meat for dinner, do you want grass fed beef that’s rich in vitamins and healthy fat, or a fake meat product with over 263 global patents?15

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/09/05/protein-sources-are-not-equal.aspx

Why Are Covid Death Rates in Haiti So Low?

Posted on by
3
Almost nobody in Haiti died from COVID because almost nobody there got “vaccinated”

Dr Eddy Betterman

[…]

According to reports, Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world, also happens to have the world’s lowest COVID death rates. As of the end of April, just 254 people have died in Haiti from what authorities agree constitutes COVID.

Compared to the United States, which currently has a COVID death rate of around 1,800 per one million people, Haiti has a COVID death rate of just 22 per one million people.

NPR admits in a report about Haiti that nobody there wears a mask, and daily life is normal with busy and crowded buses and markets.

“And Haiti hasn’t yet administered a single COVID-19 vaccine,” NPR‘s Jason Beaubien further reveals.

[…]

It turns out that Haiti had its own version of Tony Fauci, a man named Dr. Jean “Bill” Pape, who headed up a commission during the “pandemic” to deal with the fallout. In the end, however, the commission was dissolved because Haiti was, and continues to be, COVID-free.

“The reason mainly is because we have very, very few cases of COVID,” Pape said about why the commission was ultimately disbanded.

GHESKIO, the local health agency that Pape heads, also closed its COVID units last fall due to a lack of patients.

[…]

“Sometimes it’s two, sometimes zero, sometimes it’s 20 cases,” Pape said. “But we are not seeing a second wave as we thought would happen.”

Unlike much of the rest of the world, Haiti remained open during the “pandemic.” Outdoor markets were never closed, and people there continued working because sheltering in place and remote employment are not things that the average Haitian can afford.

“Most people don’t wear a mask,” Pape added, noting that Haitians continued working as normal throughout the pandemic because “if they don’t work, they don’t eat – their family doesn’t eat.”

When AstraZeneca tried to peddle its COVID injection on Haiti, the Haitian government denied a shipment of it. It turns out that the medical community in Haiti heard about all the “rare” side effects from the jab and thus rejected it.

“COVID did not impact us as badly,” said Dr. Jacqueline Gautier, who serves on the national technical advisory group on COVID vaccination in Haiti. “People don’t think [the vaccine] is worth it, actually.”

Another factor that makes Haiti an incredible success story compared to other nations is the fact that its population is very young. The average age in Haiti is around 23, while in the United States it is closer to 40.

Younger people tend to have stronger immune systems than older people.

“Also, there are many other major problems the country is facing,” Gautier added. “So people don’t see COVID as a major, problem for us. And who can blame them?”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2023/09/05/nobody-died-covid-haiti-because-nobody-got-vaccinated/

New Zealand: Deaths up 14%. Births down 28%. Disability up 37%.

Posted on by
2

Guy Hatchard

THE official figures for births and deaths in New Zealand between July 1 2022 and June 30 2023 have been released. The short summary accompanying the release of the horrifying figures compares these with the previous 12 months, and reports increases in deaths and reductions in live births. The 2022/23 figures would have better been compared with the July 2018 to June 2019 totals, the first available pre-pandemic period. We report this comparison below.

There were 38,442 deaths among all ages for July 2022-June 2023 compared with 33,753 deaths in the 2018/19 period. This is an increase of 4,689 deaths (up 14 per cent) and equates to 90 excess deaths per week.

Deaths among 15-to-64-year-olds were up by 6 per cent. Figures released by the Household Labour Force Survey report the rate of disability sufficient to preclude joining the workforce among this age group has increased by 37.5 per cent over the same period and now stands at 14.3 per cent of the workforce. That is huge. Why?

Alarmingly, live births fell from 26,500 in 2018/19 to 19,185 in 2022/23, a decrease of 7,400 or 28 per cent. This is an unprecedented drop.

Covid deaths during this period averaged around two to three per week and can be discounted as a causal factor for the increase in deaths. Nor is an ageing population sufficient explanation for the figures.

We have been aware of data like this for some time now, but there has been deafening silence from our politicians, who are currently running for re-election. We are heading into this election under unusual and coercive constraints which have no precedent in our history as a nation.

Due to the events of the last three years, the machinery of government has assumed more control over our medical and food choices. The birth and death figures must be regarded as a verdict on policies which have enjoyed cross-party support.

As a result of government policies, we have lost many of our rights as citizens. None of the parties currently elected to Parliament has any plans to revoke this government overreach. So what has gone wrong and how will this affect us if we re-elect the same group of political parties to power?

Pandemic policies have established a precedent allowing the government to enforce compliance with its medical rules. They coerced almost everyone to take injections with high rates of adverse effects. Restrictions on social movement and communication have been normalised. Agreements with social media providers and the mainstream press have censored the availability of independent information and hampered scientific dialogue. Access to official public health data has been limited.

The government has passed the Therapeutic Products Bill which has legitimised the substitution of thousands of natural ingredients with untested synthetic alternatives without requirements for clear labelling. The Bill also facilitates dose restrictions and banning of many traditional herbal products and supplements at the whim of a bureaucrat.

The government has authorised the addition of fluoride to public water supplies. It has mandated the addition of chemical supplements to staple foods including a synthetic form of folic acid to flour which is hard to metabolise and inhibits some metabolic pathways vital for health.

Re-electing sitting members of parliament from any party is a prescription for more of the same. Our current politicians are refusing to face up to some hard facts. We are in the midst of a medical emergency of unparalleled proportions. Our hospitals are overwhelmed, our politicians are silent.

Unbelievably, these politicians and medical tsars continue to ignore accumulating evidence being published in learned science journals pointing to adverse effects of mRNA vaccines. Despite this, the government is still funding advertising encouraging the population to receive further booster injections. They don’t work and they endanger health.

There are no plans to investigate what has gone wrong. It is time to say goodbye to MPs from across the political spectrum who have spectacularly failed our nation in its hour of need. If they are re-elected, our ability to manage our own health choices will be gone for good.

The judgment on their competence is there in black and white from their own statistics – deaths up 14 per cent and births down 28 per cent. It doesn’t take a genius to know where this is going. Mistakes were made and they cannot be hidden or denied any longer. Some hard questions must be asked and answered.

[…]

Via https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/deaths-up-14-births-down-28-disability-up-37-wake-up-politicians/

Trump Defiantly Declares ‘WE WILL NOT COMPLY’ in Response to Efforts to Reinstate COVID Lockdowns and Mask and Vaccine Mandates

Posted on by
8

Jim Hoft

Gateway Pundit

Former President Donald Trump released a fiery video statement, vehemently opposing attempts to reinstate COVID-19 restrictions, including lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates.

Trump’s comments come amidst increased concerns over new variants of COVID-19 in an attempt to manipulate the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

In the video posted on Truth Social, Trump argued that the “left-wing lunatics” are employing scare tactics again about new COVID-19 variants to set the stage for renewed restrictions. He said that the real motive behind this is to influence the upcoming 2024 election through what he describes as an attempt to “restart the COVID hysteria.”

Below is the transcript:

The left-wing lunatics are trying very hard to bring back COVID lockdowns and mandates with all of their sudden fear-mongering about the new variants that are coming.

Gee whiz, you know what else is coming? An election. They want to restart the COVID hysteria so they can justify more lockdowns, more censorship, more illegal dropboxes, more mail-in ballots, and trillions of dollars in payoffs to their political allies heading into the 2024 election. Does that sound familiar?

These are bad people. These are sick people we’re dealing with. But to every COVID tyrant who wants to take away our freedom, hear these words, WE WILL NOT COMPLY, so don’t even think about it.

We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates, and we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates.

They rigged the 2020 election, and now they’re trying to do the same thing all over again. By rigging the most important election in the history of our country, the 2024 election, even if it means trying to bring back COVID. But they will fail because we will not let it happen.

When I’m back in the White House, I will use every available authority to cut federal funding to any school, college, airline, or public transportation system that imposes a mask mandate or a vaccine mandate.

 

Trump’s comments come after Infowars reported that the Biden regime is preparing to reinstate full COVID-19 lockdowns, beginning with masking mandates for TSA and airport employees reportedly as early as mid-September.

A high-level TSA official reached out to Infowars, detailing a meeting where TSA managers were informed of new memorandums and policies that would reimplement mask-wearing.

These policies will reinstate the mask mandate for TSA and airport employees starting in mid-September.

According to the TSA official, further details on how the policy will escalate will be provided in the coming week.

The official added that by mid-October, mask-wearing will be mandated for pilots, flight staff, passengers, and all airport patrons.

Following this disclosure from the TSA official, Infowars reached out to a trusted Border Patrol source, also in a managerial position.

This source corroborated the directives, confirming that similar measures were being planned for Border Patrol personnel.

“They were told it was not a matter of “if” but “when” official Covid numbers will go back up and they expect by mid-October a return to forced-masking policies that the Biden administration previously only reluctantly ended after massive pressure,” Infowars reported.

During his show, Alex Jones warned that by December, a return to full COVID lockdown will be implemented.

Jones also said that the new variant will be super bad.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/donald-trump-defiantly-declares-we-will-not-comply/

Half of Vaccinated People Still Producing Spike Protein After Six Months

Posted on by
Reply

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/prca.202300048

Igor Chudov

Remember how we were told that “the vaccine stays in the arm” and that “harmless spike protein is only produced for a couple of days.” They said they were sure of that, despite no data to confirm their statements.

Well, sadly, it turns out that they lied to us. The data is now in, and it proves such claims wrong!

A clever scientific study by Brogna et al., just published, detected the presence of spike protein in COVID-vaccinated people six MONTHS after vaccination – and excluded the possibility of cross-contamination of experimental data with wild-circulating COVID infections.

What the Scientists Did

The study’s authors used a sensitive test, called mass-spectrometry to detect a specific amino-acid sequence that exists only in the vaccine-induced spike protein.

To remind my readers, mRNA COVID vaccines contain genetic code to produce the so-called “spike protein,” a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that allows the virus to penetrate and infect human cells. During the penetration process, called “fusion,” the viral spike protein changes shape, becoming a spear of sorts, penetrating the cell surface.

The only modification that both Pfizer and Moderna did was to “prefusion stabilize” the vaccine-encoded spike protein to prevent it from changing its shape and be more stable in the human body. (You can read more about it here).

The scientists decided to look for that specific, genetically modified protein component.

Experimental design: Mass spectrometry examination of biological samples was used to detect the presence of specific fragments of recombinant Spike protein in subjects who received mRNA-basedvaccines.

The replacement, using two proline amino acids, is referred to as “PP” by the study authors (PP stands for proline-proline). They are Italian and possibly did not realize that “PP” sounds naughty, so in most English literature, the sequence is called “2P”. Leaving kindergarten humor aside, the study authors zero in on the spike protein component that only exists in the COVID vaccine and does NOT occur in the naturally existing Sars-Cov-2 virus.

To be sure that their finding is not spurious, scientists included a control group of people who never received the COVID vaccines:

The study group, from southern Italy, was 40 subjects, 20 were vaccinated with the full cycle of mRNA vaccine as of April 2022, being part of the health sector, and 20 were unvaccinated with negativity for COVID-19 to nasopharyngeal test and with no titer of any antibodies. Other 20 unvaccinated persons were added that were positive for COVID-19.

The three groups were looked at.

It turns out that only the people in the vaccinated subgroup were found to carry vaccine-derived spike protein. What is worse, vaccine spike protein was found as late as six months after the last dose!

The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological sample analyzed (Figures 1C–E and 2). This presence was independent of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The antibody titers had a geometric mean of 629.86BAU/mL (Figure 1E). The minimum time PP-Spike was detected was 69 days after vaccination, while the maximum time was 187days. Allcontrols (samples from unvaccinated individuals) were negative. The control group (20 unvaccinated people) was also tested after contracting COVID-19 and was negative for PP-spike.

Nowhere does the study state that spike protein production ends after 187 days – the upper limit on time after vaccination was an artifact of the study design.

This picture explains the study design, showing the location of the “stabilized 2P spike protein” amino acid sequence:

The authors explain the likely mechanism of persistent spike protein production:

Note the ominous possibility, “mRNA may be integrated or re-transcribed”. What is that?

Covid Vaccine Becomes Part of Human DNA?

An item of note is the above sentence, “It is possible that the mRNA may be integrated or re-transcribed in some cells.” The so-called reverse transcription, that is, vaccine mRNA becoming part of the human DNA genome in some affected cells, was originally dismissed without evidence by the so-called “COVID science,” until it was demonstrated in in-vitro experiments.

Similarly, human cells with COVID vaccine genetic code reverse-transcribed into them may also endlessly produce the spike protein for the affected individuals’ lives.

Does this Explain IgG4 Immune Tolerance?

The so-called immune tolerance, which is a tendency of the organism to ignore persistent pathogens instead of offering a vigorous immune reaction, may be why vaccinated people are more susceptible to frequent repeat infections and slower virus clearance.

[…]

Via https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/half-of-vaccinated-people-never-stop

 

How the Magna Carta Came About

Posted on by
Reply

Episode  2 The Magna Carta: Patching Up a Squabble

1215: Years That Changed History

Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)

Film Review

Despite the Magna Carta’s reputation as the foundation of modern democratic legal systems, it had minimal impact on the rural peasants who comprised most of England’s population in 1215. Armstrong uses most of this lecture to lay out historical background to this agreement between King John I and 25 rebellious barons.

Following the Norman conquest in 1066, the Anglo Saxon barons who controlled most English estates had their lands seized by their new Norman overlords. Most of the Anglo Saxon barons who survived went into monasteries.

Following his occupation of England, William the Conqueror continued to control much of France.* However by 1215, John I was continuously at war with the French king to keep these lands. This, along without continual wars in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, led to massive tax increases, especially after the king lost many of his French holdings (and the revenue they produced).

In the 13th century, all English land technically belonged to the Crown, with large landholders paying the king a fee for growing crops on it (cultivated by peasant serfs). In addition to increasing these fees, John I also increased the fees sheriffs paid for the right to collect taxes (which they pocketed) in their assigned jurisdictions. King John also increased his income by aforesting agricultural land to increase his income from poaching fines.**

The rebellious barons were also angry about the king’s dispute with the pope about the former’s attempt to appoint his own Archbishop of Canterbury (the nominal leader of the Catholic church in 13th century England). To punish the king, from 1208-1213 the pope put England under an interdict under which no church bells rang, no masses were held and no English Catholic could be buried in consecrated ground. John I’s reaction was to seize the revenue of all England’s Catholic churches, for which the pope excommunicated him.

The pope repealed the interdict after John I accepted the pope’s appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, signed over all his remaining empire (England, Anjou, Poitu, Gascony and Ireland) to the pope and agreed to pay Rome 1100 marks a year to remain king.

The barons’ initial demand was for John I to affirm the laws of the Anglo-Saxon King Edward the Confessor and to reissue Henry I’s charter of liberty. When the king refused, the barons renounced their allegiance to the throne.

After the king appointed a royal negotiator, the 25 barons drew up the 63 clause document (later referred to as the Magna Carta). The king signed it on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede.

A few month’s later, at the king’s request, the pope declared it illegal under church law.

*In addition to Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Gascony the English king controlled Aquitaine (acquired after William the Conqueror’s great grand son Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine. At the time, it was known as the Angevin Empire.

**Prior to 1066, forests were a commons, which meant it was legal for all British subjects to hunt enough boar and deer to feed their families. After the Norman conquest, the forest became the king’s exclusive property.

***John I’s father Henry II appointed – and later murdered – Archbishop of Canterbury Thoma Beckett.

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/12392969/12392973

CO2: A Close Examination of the 97% consensus

Posted on by
6

By: Gregory Wrightstone – Executive Director CO2 Coalition

You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are science-deniers. The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more.

The many scientists, engineers and energy experts that comprise the CO2 Coalition are often asked something along the lines of: “So you believe in climate change, then?” Our answer? “Yes, of course we do: it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.” It is important to ask the right questions. The question is not, “Is climate change happening?” The real question of serious importance is, “Is climate change now driven primarily by human actions? That question should be followed up by “is our changing climate beneficial or harmful to ecosystems and humanity?”

There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are two:

  1. Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years.
  2. Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have been generally increasing in fits and starts for more than 150 years.

What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2. There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the warming we’ve had since 1900 that was directly caused by us.

We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.

The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.

What is the basis for the “97% consensus” notion? Is it true? 

[…]

If, indeed, 97% of all scientists truly believed that human activities were causing the moderate warming that we have seen in the last 150 years, it would be reasonable for one to consider this when determining what to believe. One would be wrong, however.

Science, unlike religion, is not a belief system. Scientists, just like anyone else, will say that they believe things (whether they believe them or not) for social convenience, political expediency or financial profit. For this and other good reasons, science is not founded upon the beliefs of scientists. It is a disciplined method of inquiry, by which scientists apply pre-existing theory to observation and measurement, so as to develop or to reject a theory, so that they can unravel as clearly and as certainly as possible the distinction between what the Greek philosopher Anaximander called “that which is and that which is not.”

[…]

The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. “Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science.

What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed up with research and data?

The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.

The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.

Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”

The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of “97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 1.3 million times.

[…]

The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change. As Cook’s paper said,

“We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).”

The paper concluded,

“Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. … Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

The paper asserted—falsely, as it turned out—that 97% of the papers the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years.

When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% claimed by Cook and his co-authors falls to 32.6%.

A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change (Figure 1). Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third categories would include most skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming, including the scientists of the CO2 Coalition, who accept that increasing CO2 is probably causing some, probably modest, amount of warming; an amount that is likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. Only by casting a wide net could Cook conclude that there is any type of “consensus.”

Figure 1 – Categories of endorsement – Cook 2013

Agnotology is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse.

They reviewed the actual papers used by Cook and found that only 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6% of the smaller sample that excluded those papers expressing no opinion endorsed man-made global warming as they defined it. Remarkably, they found that Cook and his assistants had themselves marked only 64 papers—or 0.5% of the 11,944 they said they had reviewed—as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made (Figure 2). Yet they stated, both in the paper itself and subsequently, that they had found a “97% consensus” explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made.

It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic human-caused warming.

Note that the official “consensus” position—supported though it was by just 0.3% of the 11,944 papers reviewed—says nothing more than recent warming was mostly man-made. Even if that were the case—and the overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on that question, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer—it would not indicate that global warming is dangerous.

[…]

More recently, in 2016, George Mason University (Maibach 2016) surveyed more than 4,000 members of the American Meteorological Society and found that 33% believed that climate change was not occurring, was at most half man-made, was mostly natural, or they did not know. Significantly, only 18% believed that a large amount—or all—of additional climate change could be averted.

[…]

Via https://co2coalition.org/media/97-consensus-what-consensus-2/

Federal Court Rules Against FDA in Ivermectin Case

Posted on by
2

Posted BY: RM | NwoReport

In a significant legal development, a Federal Court has ruled that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) exceeded its authority with its messaging against the use of Ivermectin in Americans. The court’s verdict emphasized that the FDA should not assume the role of a physician in determining treatment options.

The controversy surrounding Ivermectin has been a hot topic throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While some studies suggested potential benefits of the drug, the FDA maintained a stance against its use for treating or preventing COVID-19. This led to a legal challenge by individuals and groups advocating for Ivermectin’s use as a potential treatment option.

The court’s decision highlighted the FDA’s primary role as a regulatory body responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical products. It clarified that the FDA’s authority does not extend to making individualized medical decisions for patients. This ruling emphasizes the importance of allowing healthcare professionals and patients to make treatment decisions based on their unique circumstances and medical expertise.

The FDA’s messaging on Ivermectin had sparked debates and fueled conspiracy theories, with some believing that the agency was withholding a potentially effective treatment. However, the court’s decision reaffirms the need for evidence-based medical practices and underscores the importance of clinical trials and rigorous scientific evaluation in determining the suitability of drugs for specific conditions.

In conclusion, the Federal Court’s ruling regarding the FDA’s messaging on Ivermectin serves as a reminder of the agency’s role in drug regulation. It highlights the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between regulatory oversight and individual medical decisions. This decision will likely have a significant impact on future public health communications and the ongoing discussions surrounding potential treatments for COVID-19.

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/federal-court-finds-fda-overstepped-boundaries-in-anti-ivermectin-messaging-says-fda-is-not-a-doctor/

Ten Irrefutable 9/11 Facts

Posted on by
Reply


By Elias Davidsson and Craig McKee

Global Research

1. U.S. authorities have failed to trace, arrest, try (prosecute), and punish anyone responsible for the crime against humanity committed on 9/11.

The mass murder committed on September 11, 2001 represents, under international law, a crime against humanity. The State where it was committed – in this case the United States of America – bears the obligation to the international community to trace, arrest, try, and punish individuals responsible for that crime.

Since 2002, U.S. authorities admit they have detained a handful of persons at Guantánamo Bay who are accused of helping to orchestrate 9/11. Their identities remain in doubt; their alleged confessions were made behind closed doors; and their trial by a military court does not fulfill minimal international norms of due process.

U.S. authorities claim to have sentenced Zacarias Moussaoui to life imprisonment for not having warned the FBI about the preparations for 9/11, an allegation he denied. No evidence was presented that he was involved in the preparations for 9/11 or knew anything about these preparations. No evidence was presented that he even knew the alleged hijackers. U.S. authorities also claim to hold, since 2003, a man by the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) in Guantánamo who allegedly confessed to have masterminded 9/11 and more than 30 other terrorist operations. He also allegedly confessed to having planned an attack on a bank in Washington State that did not exist until after he was already in Guantánamo. The man, whose identity remains murky and whose connection to 9/11 is limited to what he said in his ludicrous confession, has not been prosecuted, let alone sentenced. No one seriously expects him to be ever brought to trial, let alone a trial fulfilling international norms.

2. When announcing to the United Nations their decision to attack Afghanistan, U.S. authorities failed to provide evidence that the crime of 9/11 was in any way connected to Afghanistan. In fact, such evidence has still not been produced.

See the letter from U.S. Representative John Negroponte to the President of the UN Security Council, October 7, 2001 (mirrored here).

3. The United States government did not authorize an investigation of the events of 9/11 that could have fulfilled minimal international standards: The 9/11 Commission was neither independent nor impartial, and its investigation was neither thorough nor transparent.

Regarding minimal standards of investigation, see Elias Davidsson, “The Events of 11 September 2001 and the Right to the Truth.” (See this or this)

4. Despite vilifying Osama bin Laden as a terrorist leader, judicial authorities in the United States have failed to charge him in connection with 9/11. He was not even wanted in connection with this crime.

The FBI admitted in June 2006 that it possesses no concrete evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. (See: Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has no ‘hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” Information Clearing House, June 18, 2006, mirrored here)

5. Authorities in the United States have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the 19 persons named by the FBI as 9/11 hijackers even boarded aircraft that they are alleged to have subsequently hijacked. 

To be precise: U.S. authorities have failed to produce authenticated passenger lists that would include the names of the alleged hijackers; witnesses who saw these alleged hijackers in the airports or boarding the aircraft; authenticated security-camera videos proving their presence in the airports of departure; and DNA identification of these individuals’ bodily remains (see detailed analysis in Elias Davidsson, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 [Algora Publishers, New York, 2013], Chapter 2).

6. U.S. authorities have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that passenger airliners crashed at the known landmarks on 9/11.

The FBI admitted in a letter to the Nevada District U.S. Court on March 14, 2008, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose, that records detailing the collection and positive identification of the wreckage of the crashed aircraft do not exist (Letter mirrored here). He thus admitted that the FBI failed to formally identify the wreckage found at the various crash sites as belonging to the allegedly hijacked aircraft. It is, therefore, not established that the allegedly hijacked aircraft crashed at these locations.

7. U.S. authorities have failed to explain why more than 1,100 persons, who were present at the World Trade Center on 9/11, vanished into thin air.

Vast parts of the Twin Towers were literally pulverized as can be seen from video recordings, photos, and testimonies. Of more than 1,100 missing persons, not a single tooth, nail, or bone has been found as of 2011 (See, inter alia, Anemona Hartocollis, “Connecting with lost loved ones, if only by the tips of fingers,” The New York Times, September 11, 2011 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities have never explained what could have caused more than 1,100 persons to vanish without leaving a trace. They bear the obligation, under human rights law, to determine the reason for such disappearances.

8. U.S. authorities compensated families of 9/11 victims that agreed to waive their right to further court action. The compensation exceeded by at least seven times what was paid to the families of firefighters who died in rescue operations on 9/11.

The families of 9/11 victims received from the U.S. Compensation Fund, established in October 2001, an average of $2.1 million if they agreed to waive their right to engage in civil proceedings (see, inter alia, Brian Bernbaum, “9/11 Fund Chief Faults Payments,” CBS News, 4.9.2003 [mirrored here]). As of 2013, spouses of firefighters who die in line of duty can obtain $333,605 under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) Act (42 U.S.C. 3796). The figure for 2001 was undoubtedly lower. The 95 families, who did not apply to the Compensation Fund and preferred to let courts determine their rights, obtained an average of $5.5 million in out-of-court settlements (see, Ashby Jones, “The 9/11 Victim Settlements: A Chat with Skadden’s Sheila Birnbaum,” The Wall Street Journal, 13.3.2009 [mirrored here]).

9. U.S. authorities have failed to explain the effect of numerous military drills conducted on the morning of 9/11 – including the simulation of aircraft hijackings – on the commission of the mass murder.

Military drills caused confusion and surprised military and civilian personnel responsible for air traffic, as reported in U.S. media. For example, NORAD Major General Larry Arnold said that, “By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” (See, Eric Hehs, “Conversation with Major General Larry Arnold,” One Magazine, January 2002 [mirrored here]). Colonel Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander, said he had been told that across the nation there were “29 different reports of hijackings.” (See, Robert A. Baker, “Commander of 9/11 Air Defenses Retires,” Newhouse News Service, March 31, 2005 [mirrored here]). U.S. authorities failed to explain how these drills affected the commission of the crime, including the apparent failure to intercept hijacked aircraft.

10. U.S. authorities promoted numerous officials who, according to the official account on 9/11, had failed to carry out their duties with regard to 9/11. Not a single person has been held accountable anywhere in government for what went wrong on or prior to 9/11.

Here are few examples: Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11, was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001; Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11, was promoted to head the new “Northern Command” a year after 9/11; Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director on 9/11, was promoted in 2004 to the rank of admiral; Brigadier General Montague Winfield, who on 9/11 was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC), was promoted in May 2003 to the two-star rank of major general; Marion (Spike) Bowman, who blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.”

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-irrefutable-devastating-911-facts/5637525