“Parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization."[fn]“FDA Authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Emergency Use in Children 5 through 11 Years of Age,” https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-children-5-through-11-years-age[/fn] Four months later, it’s clear that FDA authorization meant little, if anything, in terms of protection from COVID infection for young children.The <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-children-5-through-11-years-age" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FDA</a> approved Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID shots for children between the ages of 5 and 11 on October 29, 2021. The data submitted to the FDA for approval claimed to show that:<ul><li>Immune responses of children in stage 3 trials were “comparable to those of individuals 16 through 25 years of age,” and therefore one could assume the same level of protection,</li><li>The shots were “90.7% effective in preventing COVID-19 in children 5 through 11,” and</li><li>“Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy” (Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD).</li></ul>The dosage settled on by Pfizer-BioNTech for the 5-11 age group was 10 micrograms, as opposed to the 30 micrograms for those aged 12 and above. Pfizer tested doses of 10, 20, and 30 micrograms on young children and ultimately settled on the smallest of the three options. Doses of 30 micrograms produced side effects that were deemed unacceptable; doses of 20 micrograms produced more side effects than 10 micrograms, but with similar post-vaccination immunogenicity.What happened to Pfizer’s ongoing trial data?The “effectiveness data” supplied to the FDA also stated that the trial was “ongoing”, as is indeed required for any drug that is not actually approved but only given an EUA (emergency use authorization):&nbsp;It is FDA’s expectation that, following submission of an EUA request and issuance of an EUA, a sponsor would continue to collect placebo-controlled data in any ongoing trials for as long as feasible and would also work towards submission of a Biologics License Application (BLA) as soon as possible.[fn]“Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19 Guidance for Industry,” https://www.fda.gov/media/142749/download[/fn]However, four months later it was not Pfizer or BioNTech that issued a report on latest findings related to the product under concern. Rather, a group of researchers from the New York State Department of Health, Albany, along with Dr. Eli Rosenberg of the Albany School of Public Health published a <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454v1.full.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> they called, “Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant.”What they found is hugely important, given that their study is based on more than one million vaccinated children, over 365,000 of whom were between the ages of 5 and 11. By contrast, just 4,700 children were enrolled in the Phase 3 trials conducted prior to receiving an EUA. The NYS study found that, “During Omicron variant predominance, VE [vaccine efficacy] against infection declined rapidly for NYS children 5-11 years, with low protection by one month following full-vaccination.”Furthermore, “Among children 12-17, protection declined substantially, albeit more slowly.”Results – a dire failure and a cover-upThe “Results” section of the study picked out a few select statistics to illustrate their conclusions, noting that over the duration of the period in question (the week of November 29, 2021 through January 24), the case incidence rate ratio (IRR) for unvaccinated children versus the fully-vaccinated dropped from 6.7 to 2.0 for the 12-17 age group.In the 5-11 age group, the IRR for cases started out much lower at 3.1 and had dropped to 1.1 by the end of the study period. That is to say, the shots were by then useless.Statistics for hospitalization were slightly better, with an IRR of 3.7 for the older age group at its lowest point and 1.9 for the younger age group – that is to say, unvaccinated children between the ages of 5 and 11 were twice as likely as their vaccinated counterparts to be hospitalized with COVID.The study’s authors admitted, however, that with regard to hospitalization figures, “outcomes were sparse, particularly when restricted to primary admission reason for COVID-19.” Translated into plain English, that means that the data provided for hospitalization is junk. Those kids could have been in hospital for anything under the sun and just happened to “test positive” for COVID on a 40-cycle PCR test. The study does not tell us which criteria were used to determine a “case", nor does it tell us how many children were primarily admitted for COVID, though clearly the authors have that data.Week by weekThe study also investigated vaccine efficacy over time, from the period immediately following the second shot until the end of January. Curiously, the text section of the study results cites the data for the 28-34-day period as if it were the last period studied, describing how vaccine efficacy for the 12-17 age group dropped from 4.5 to 2.3 by that point; for children between 5 and 11, it dropped from 2.9 to 1.1.VE of 1.1 is bad enough even without side effects to contend with, and 34 days from the time of the shot is just over a month! But it got worse, though the text of the study didn’t see fit to point it out, leaving the statistics tucked away right at the end in a graph that showed that VE for the 5-11 age group between 35 and 41 days following the second shot was down to 0.9; by the week after that, it had dropped to 0.7.In other words, VE after 34 days from the second shot was negative. Children who received two Pfizer shots were more likely than their unvaccinated counterparts to contract COVID just seven weeks after being deemed fully-vaccinated. Incidentally, these findings mirror those seen in other countries, although older age groups seem to take a little longer to reach negative VE.Here’s the graph for New York’s children. The blue bars are the 5-11 age group; the orange bars are the 12-17 age group. The red dotted line is VE = 1, where there’s no difference between getting the shots and deciding against.&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/pfizer_kids_graph_143b61ac26.png"></figure>&nbsp;And the conclusions…The “conclusions” section is interestingly titled “Conclusions and Relevance.” That is to say, here are the results, and we’ll tell you how to interpret them. In the same frame of mind, the study’s authors added a sentence underneath the graph showing negative VE, claiming that:&nbsp;Negative VE values observed in later timepoints likely reflect estimator instability and/or residual confounding, as opposed to true relatively increased risk for those vaccinated.As for the study as a whole, there was no getting around the gloomy conclusion that “the effectiveness against cases of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer shot] declined rapidly for children, particularly those 5-11 years.”However, what was relevant then followed:&nbsp;… vaccination of children 5-11 years was protective against severe disease and is recommended. These results highlight the potential need to study alternative vaccine dosing for children and the continued importance [of] layered protections, including mask wearing, to prevent infection and transmission [italics added].Data supporting any conclusion regarding severe disease in the study isn’t there.Likewise, the study has nothing to say or contribute regarding mask wearing. If you believe masks work and are now finally convinced that the shots don’t, then you might want to keep wearing one or try instead “layered protections”, whatever they are. But the study doesn’t highlight anything about masks.And in other countries…In Israel, very similar results can be extracted from the Health Ministry’s COVID “<a href="https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dashboard</a>.” (Data from March 2nd, 2022.)Rate of COVID infections per 100,000 people:Age 5-11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 570.5 for unvaccinated children, 1,015.1 for vaccinatedAge 12-15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 458.8 for unvaccinated children, 676.8 for vaccinated, 1,232.4 for those with “expired” vax-statusAge 16-19&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 574.3 for unvaccinated children, 750.8 for vaccinated, 747.9 for “expired” vax-status&nbsp;For serious cases (which includes those hospitalized for other reasons but with a positive COVID test result):Age 5-11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2 cases, both in unvaccinated children (rate 0.2), 0 cases in vaccinated (rate 0)Age 12-15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2 cases, both in vaccinated children (rate 0.6), 0 cases in unvaccinated (rate 0)Age 16-19&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1 case in unvaccinated child (rate 0.9), 2 cases in vaccinated (rate 0.5)&nbsp;Reactions – or rather, the lack ofWe have no way of knowing if Pfizer ever did update the FDA on its “ongoing” studies of the efficacy and safety of the shots for children. It’s probably safe to assume that if Pfizer had more encouraging data tucked up its sleeve, this would be a great time to produce it with a grand flourish.But Pfizer has not reacted – publicly, at any rate.Nor has the FDA.They’re still promoting the shots and will probably soon be pushing them for every man, woman, and child <a href="https://aflds.org/news/post/project-veritas-drops-bombshell-video-twitter-suspends-account/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">over the age of six months</a>.All the same, the study's results don’t precisely contradict the Phase 3 trial results, because they didn’t use the same parameters. This study looked at cases (presumably just PCR results) and hospitalizations, whereas Pfizer-BioNTech examined symptomatic cases only, as it did with its other mRNA shot trials for other age brackets. (Their excuse for not testing for asymptomatic cases as well was that it would have been too difficult to do so.)That didn’t stop the FDA from claiming that it had “determined the vaccine to be effective in preventing COVID-19,” which was patently untrue. However, that wasn’t based on case results but rather on the results of a dubious method called immuno-bridging. What Pfizer-BioNTech did was compare the immune response (antibody generation) in study participants to that seen in older age groups, and extrapolate the significance. Thus they noted that, “The immune responses of the younger age participants were comparable to the older participants,” and that the shots were therefore equally efficacious.Immuno-bridging was derided at the time that the FDA published its EUA by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFo-c1b02Oc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dr. Michael Yeadon</a>, a former vice-president of Pfizer. Now, with this latest study, we have evidence that its conclusions are meaningless. In any case, researchers have long acknowledged that immunity is far more complex than the number of antibodies a person has. But it was still good enough for the FDA last October. Will it continue to be good enough now?&nbsp;What next?The study was widely publicized in the MSM. Unsurprisingly, no one seemed to be calling for the withdrawal of the shot for the 5-11 age group. No need – within a few days, or less, everyone will have forgotten about the study’s dismal results, especially with a war on.But there are actually hints in the study itself that its findings will be used not to spare children the dangers of mRNA shots, but to justify giving them even more doses.And if protection against infection is the name of the game, then logically speaking, that would mean a booster shot once every six weeks.Of course, logic has nothing to do with COVID shots, but the study’s authors were quite clear that “review of the dosing schedule for children 5-11 years appears prudent,” in light of the study’s results.&nbsp;It was a gamble from the start. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/kids-covid-vaccines-age-smaller-dose/620591/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Atlantic</a> quoted one Bill Gruber, Pfizer’s senior vice-president of vaccine clinical R &amp; D, who told the FDA’s panel of advisers that “we think we have optimized immune response and minimized reactions,” when settling on the 10-microgram dose. For the under-5 age group, Pfizer settled on 3 micrograms and then had to <a href="https://aflds.org/news/post/pfizer-pulls-small-child-emergency-use-request-after-aflds-spotlights-vaccine-trial-failure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">postpone</a> their application for FDA approval due to the fact that a double-dose regimen failed to show efficacy.“They have to make the best guess about what dosage to use in young children and they got it wrong; they underdosed,” said <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pfizer-covid-vaccine-kids-fda-authorization-postponed-rcna15730" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Prof. John Moore</a> when that happened.&nbsp;“We cannot treat kids as little adults,” added <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pfizer-testing-third-covid-vaccine-dose-young-kids-rcna9148" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dr. Isaac Bogoch</a>, an infectious disease specialist.In the New York study, the authors noted that VE jumped from just 11% for 11-year-olds to 67% for 12-year-olds at the end of the study period. “The finding of markedly-lower VE against infection for children 11 years compared to those 12 and 13 years, despite overlapping physiology, suggests lower vaccine dose may explain lower 5-11 years VE,” they wrote. “This gap suggests … [the] need for study of numbers of doses, amount per dose…”

iStock-1205714632.jpg

Medical

What does Pfizer have to say about it?

Pfizer's shots don't work for kids

This Wednesday, the senior editor of NPR, Uri Berliner, announced that he would be resigning from the organization for which he has worked for the past 25 years.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">My resignation letter to NPR CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/krmaher?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@krmaher</a> <a href="https://t.co/0hafVbcZAK">pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK</a>— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) <a href="https://twitter.com/uberliner/status/1780610524411048183?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The day before he tendered his resignation, Berliner had been suspended from NPR for five days without pay, due to the criticism of his colleagues regarding a piece he wrote for The Free Press, excoriating NPR for its progressive bias.&nbsp;&nbsp;The apology as a weaponInstead of resigning, Berliner could have apologized, recanted, and moved on — as many have done before him, especially when they cannot afford to lose their source of income. The more people take this route, the harder it is to be the outlier, especially as that outlier can be ostracized not only at work but also in his entire social circle, and perhaps even among family and relatives.In an environment where backing down and repenting one's “unwoke” ideas is increasingly idolized, groupthink becomes swiftly embedded and harder to resist.According to Dr. James Lindsay, embedding groupthink is part of the plan, and the plan was hatched not in the United States but in China, where its finer points were tested on the native population before being exported in order to destabilize and weaken China's main rival on the world stage.<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="681" height="383" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjQp-ZLu0oI" title="James Lindsay on Struggle Sessions: Have Chinese Political Warfare Tactics Influenced American DEI?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>Dr. Lindsay explains that the “crimes” of the DEI age are intentionally vague.<blockquote>They're training you to recognize your crimes on a predetermined set of terms … and their goal is to pressure you psychologically into figuring out in their terms how you harmed other people.</blockquote>He notes the extensive use of the word “harm," a typically vague term that is essentially impossible to prove or refute.When a person is accused by someone in the workplace or any other setting of having “harmed” someone, he continues, what happens is that the person's social milieu is “weaponized” against them. The person comes under tremendous psychological pressure to “just apologize” and restore the good name of the company, social group, family etc.<blockquote>This is psychological torture that's effected through manipulating the social environment around you to create psychological struggle so that you recognize crimes that are ill-defined in reality…It ends with you selling yourself out.</blockquote>&nbsp;DEI or DIE?Berliner is a prominent example of what is happening in workplaces in many places around the world, where those who dare to resist the prevailing worldview of the institution (even, or perhaps especially, if said institution is supposedly practicing even-handed, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">government-sponsored</a> journalism) are aggressively weeded out.According to a recent representative <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/the-edi-tax-how-equity-diversity-and-inclusion-is-hobbling-british-businesses/?mc_cid=1c18d61fed&amp;mc_eid=33114c8522&amp;utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">survey</a> conducted in the U.K., training in DEI (referred to in Britain as EDIC—Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Climate) is endemic in the British workplace. 65% of those surveyed said that they had been obliged to undergo some form of diversity training by an employer.Among those who underwent DEI training, the majority reported that they had felt compelled to hide their true opinions of the content. Over one in five said they had “said what they ought to say rather than what they thought.” Among Black and Asian respondents, this proportion rose to almost one in three. Apparently, their caution was well-founded, as 36 percent of those surveyed said that they had witnessed staff being penalized for challenging DEI training and 12 percent said they had seen staff fired.Almost half of those surveyed who went through training said that what they were forced to learn conflicted with their values, and almost a third of respondents said that they had left a job because their employer adopted “woke” ideology. Here, too, the proportion was higher among minority groups and also among those who identify as LGBT.&nbsp;The survey did not examine the reasons why those identifying as LGBT should object to woke ideas, but recent activity on the part of organizations such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LGB Alliance </a>against trans-promoting groups perhaps gives a clue to where they are coming from. While woke-trans is an ideology, many who call themselves L, G, or B do not allow their form of intimate attraction to define their entire identity and object to giving it so much prominence.The report's authors concluded that DEI is operating,<blockquote>… in effect, as a tax … Many ambitious employees and senior managers are leaving companies because of the excessive time they're expected to spend on these courses … Genuine diversity of thought is required for any business to thrive, but much EDIC training is having the opposite effect and embedding a new form of groupthink.</blockquote>According to Dr. Lindsay, this is exactly the plan being implemented by influential elements who have succeeded in permeating virtually all U.S. institutions, from the armed forces to the universities, corporations to smaller businesses, government local and federal — essentially, everywhere. Whether or not the United States will be next to adopt draconian thought-police laws like those now in place in Scotland remains to be seen.

Thumbs up.jpg

wokeness

New survey shows DEI destroying workforce caliber, creating 'groupthink'

Made in China: How Mao's minions weaponize DEI to subvert America

By Alex NewmanAs the global war on educational liberty heats up, Johns Hopkins School of Education is launching a new “<a href="https://education.jhu.edu/edpolicy/policy-research-initiatives/homeschool-hub/">Homeschool Hub</a>” that has experts and advocates deeply concerned. Many say it is part of the escalating effort to bring homeschooling families under government control.&nbsp;The new entity is funded by advocates of taxpayer funding for private and home education. The United Nations education agency in recent years has called on governments to fund “non-state education providers” with tax money in order to impose “equity” goals, national testing regimes, “non-discrimination” schemes, and more.&nbsp;Leaders in the homeschooling movement and Christian education told The Newman Report that this scheme by Johns Hopkins posed a “clear and present danger” to home educators. From the information that is publicly available so far, those concerns do not appear unreasonable.&nbsp;Virtually the entire leadership of prominent national and state homeschooling organizations have been opposed to government funding of home education. In fact, homeschooling families and advocacy organizations have been a constant thorn in the side of “school choice” advocates seeking to get home educators hooked on tax funds.&nbsp;The reason why leaders of the homeschooling movement have been largely united on the issue is simple. They believe control and regulation by government will be the inevitable result of taxpayer money — especially since this is what the historical record shows. Concerns about dependency and expanding the size and scope of government exist, too.However, by bringing a new player into homeschooling world — a powerful voice backed by academic credentials and big money seeking “school choice” funding — critics are concerned about possible nefarious intentions. The goal seems to be, in part, to sideline and displace existing voices in the movement. &nbsp; &nbsp;On its website, the new “Homeschool Hub” styles itself the “one-stop shop for current information on homeschooling data, regulations, and research across the United States.” Supposedly, in-depth data and information on all fifty states will be made available on the site, though it has not been fully fleshed out yet.&nbsp;“As homeschooling continues to expand and evolve, we need a better understanding of this growing and diversifying education sector,” argued Dr. Angela Watson, Homeschool Hub creator and assistant professor of education. “We need policy based on facts, not historical stereotypes. My hope is that the Homeschool Hub will help fill these needs.”There are already multiple established and credible services offering exactly that kind of information online. These include the <a href="https://hslda.org/">Home School Legal Defense Association</a> (HSLDA), a powerhouse with detailed insights on the legal environment serving hundreds of thousands of member families that opposes government funding and control of homeschooling.&nbsp;Another major resource on homeschooling data and research is the <a href="https://www.nheri.org/">National Home Education Research Institute</a> (NHERI). Widely recognized as the top repository for research on homeschooling in the world, NHERI and its leader, Dr. Brain Ray, have long been seen as the “one-stop shop” for the latest news, data, research, and insight into homeschooling. Dr. Ray also opposes government funding and control of homeschooling.&nbsp;On its website, the Hub suggests that it will seek to displace those sources to help inform future regulation and policy on home education. “Our goal is to remove barriers to rigorous research, increase transparency, and expand awareness to encourage evidence-driven policy,” the site says without explaining what barriers it believes may exist to research or “evidence-driven policy.”&nbsp;As the far-left Washington Post strategically targets existing homeschooling leaders and institutions, the new hub aims to become “the leader” in the field of homeschooling research. “As homeschooling grows, the Homeschool Hub will serve as the leader in promoting rigorous homeschool research and responding to the need for more transparency from this growing sector,” the site added.&nbsp;When the establishment speaks of “transparency,” that is generally a dog whistle for increasing surveillance, control, data-gathering, and intrusions on privacy.The new hub’s website, citing unnamed supposed “critics,” also cites the alleged risks that “unregulated” home education might feature, including “indoctrination” or even that parents with “conservative Christian values” may seek to “isolate” their children. &nbsp;On April 25, the new Homeschool Hub, hosted at Johns Hopkins “Institute for Education Policy” and its “School of Education,” will be holding a major event on home education. Headlined “Beyond the Traditional Classroom: The Rise of Homeschooling and Its Impact on Education in America,” the event will formally launch the new hub, according to the announcement.Numerous high-profile panelists with no real ties to the homeschooling movement will participate. These include various university officials and faculty members, an adviser to the scandal-plagued World Bank, an “education reporter” at the viciously anti-homeschooling Washington Post, and a senior U.S. Department of Education official.&nbsp;Johns Hopkins, notable for pioneering transgender mutilation of children and other barbarism, is open about the fact that it is partnering with <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/">EdChoice</a>, a well-known and well-funded group seeking what it calls “school choice.” The movement, launched by legendary economist Milton Friedman, is among the leading advocates of tax funding for home education and private schools. &nbsp;Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins is based in Baltimore, Maryland, the first state that sought to create a state-run homeschooling “council” to supposedly speak for homeschooling families and advise authorities. The controversial plan, which became a lightning rod of criticism among home educators, was widely seen as a ploy to bring in regulation and control.&nbsp;<img class="image_resized" style="width:332px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt="">With homeschooling becoming a major threat to the government’s “education” narrative and monopoly, it is no surprise to see the establishment work to crush it, co-opt it, or both. Tyrants across the United States and around the world are openly waging war on home education. As such, homeschool leaders and families are right to take the threat seriously.&nbsp;Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/17/tnr20240417/">FreedomProject Media</a>.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/">Alex Newman</a> is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.

Hopkins.jpg

Education

US News

University launching new 'Homeschool Hub;' experts and advocates deeply concerned

Johns Hopkins Homeschooling: Big Ed Seeking to Control Next Generation of Home Educators

<h2>Genetic engineering puts the natural world at risk</h2>Genetic engineering going from the lab, to the field, to the wildYou may have heard about the genetically modified mosquitos <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01070-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">released</a> in Florida to mitigate a Florida invasive species spreading zika and dengue, yet that is only one aspect of how synthetic biology (synbio) can affect nature. Jim Thomas of ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) <a href="https://www.etcgroup.org/content/video-lab-field-forest" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">spoke</a> about the potential dangers synbio may have on biodiversity and how we look after, conserve, share, and use the natural world.The video below, in which Thomas discusses the threats and new trends we'll have to start dealing with, gives us a window into a world that most of us may not be aware of, but should. His talk results from a discussion held by the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group.&nbsp;Thomas brought forward the following three issues associated with the technology and nature:1. Tools of genetic engineering are being put out into the field. Previously, genetically engineered organisms would have been created in the lab. Now they can release genetically engineered viruses or organisms into the field that can genetically engineer other organisms out in the field. Examples he called "crazy" include a “project by the US defense establishment called ‘insect allies to genetically engineer plants’.” He expressed “worry about it being a potential bioweapon but also a big shift in terms of doing the genetic engineering in an uncontrolled environment and changing nature.”2. &nbsp;Synbio is being used for conservation applications. Previously, biodiversity and conservation were about protecting the natural world. Now synbio is being used for such projects as eradicating invasive species by releasing synthetic organisms or genetically engineering corals to withstand climate change. “The idea that conservation could be done by making synthetic ecosystems is a really big shift” he said.. . . . [N]ow you've got these proposals of turning the natural world into a kind of synthetic version of itself and that could really upturn how we protect the wild and natural world.&nbsp;3. Machines and algorithms, artificial intelligence, and robots are taking over genetic engineering.&nbsp;<blockquote>Large automated genetic engineering foundries called biofoundries that use artificial intelligence to make tens of thousands of organisms at a time, not from a human's mind but to design them using artificial intelligence, . . . &nbsp;and one day to go out into the environment. And, it raises a real safety question because, if you have something go wrong, you potentially don't understnd why it went wrong. With artificial intelligence, it's a bit of a black box. . . . If you're asking artificial intelligence to redesign nature and release that into the environment then you've got a big problem in terms of trying to understand safety and if something goes wrong understanding what went wrong.&nbsp;</blockquote>The group of experts, Thomas said, all “felt that there needs to be a process for scanning the horizon and monitoring and assessing new developments in genetic engineering. We began to set out what that should be . . .”<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e7ES6ZYNTjA" title="From the lab to the field to the forest: synthetic biology" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>

trees.jpg

Technology

'The idea that conservation could be done by making synthetic ecosystems is a really big shift'

Danger ahead! Changing the natural world with genetic engineering and artificial intelligence

21 shades of…The University Hospitals of North Midlands (UHNM) has unveiled not just one but twenty-one flags, in order to demonstrate “inclusion.”<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">In support of Pride Month, University Hospitals of North Midlands unveiled a new LGBTQ+ inclusion banner at Royal Stoke. The banner shows 21 different flags representing that everyone is welcome here at UHNM. Read more <a href="https://t.co/A541Z9pbRV">https://t.co/A541Z9pbRV</a> <a href="https://t.co/FCPGK7gEsI">pic.twitter.com/FCPGK7gEsI</a>— UHNM NHS Trust (@UHNM_NHS) <a href="https://twitter.com/UHNM_NHS/status/1668959772266168321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>&nbsp;For those who need to be brought up-to-date, here is a short guide to the flags:<ol style="list-style-type:decimal;"><li>Rainbow: Gay “pride” flag</li><li>Progress: “Pride” flag with the addition of stripes for trans, black, and brown people</li><li>Bisexual: Attracted to both sexes/genders</li><li>Pansexual: Attracted to “all genders”</li><li>Nonbinary: People who don't identify as either male or female</li><li>Transgender: People who identify as the opposite sex</li><li>Asexual: Those who feel no sexual attraction to anyone</li><li>Intersex: A genuine biological (and extremely rare) condition where someone has physical traits from both sexes</li><li>Gay</li><li>Lesbian</li><li>Polysexual: Attracted to “more than one gender”</li><li>Agender: Those who reject gender identity and “have none at all”</li><li>Androgyne: Those who don't look either masculine or feminine</li><li>Genderfluid: Unstable identity, veering between genders, multiple identities, and no identity at all</li><li>Genderqueer: Not following “gender norms”</li><li>Neutrosis: Lacking specific “gender identity”</li><li>Aromantic: Having little or no romantic feeling for others</li><li>Demisexual: Having sexual attraction to another only after becoming emotionally attached</li><li>Demiromantic: Having romantic attraction to another only after becoming emotionally attached</li><li>Polyamorous: Having relationships with multiple people simultaneously</li><li>Straight ally: None of the above, but “supports” them all</li></ol>&nbsp;Where's my flag?Commenting on UHNM's post, one X user wondered where “his” flag was.&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Which flag represents straight people?— Noah Matter (@matter_noah) <a href="https://twitter.com/matter_noah/status/1779823700235186397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Although the goal is “inclusion” and “making everyone feel welcome,” this apparently does not extend to those who are “straight” (i.e., heterosexual) and do not support the legitimization of traditionally non-standard lifestyles and practices.&nbsp;Fiddling while the hospitals burnOther X users wondered whether the money invested in this expression of “inclusion” might not have been better spent by the government, given the dire state of the UK's National Health Service.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Unbelievable. And in the city of my birth too. How much money was wasted on this? You should be treating the ill, not pushing this crazy activist rubbish.— Will C (@wjec77) <a href="https://twitter.com/wjec77/status/1780001702269128872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>&nbsp;Let's hoist these flags everywhere!Lisa Thomson is the Director of Communications and Charity and Executive Sponsor of the LGBTQ+ Staff Network (earning around $100,000 per year as an NHS “Director of People"). She <a href="https://www.uhnm.nhs.uk/latest-uhnm-news/posts/2023/june/uhnm-unveil-lgbtqplus-inclusion-banner-at-royal-stoke/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stressed </a>that she was delighted at the initiative and hoped that others would adopt its message:<blockquote>It is fantastic to see our message “Everyone is Welcome Here” proudly displayed in the main entrance at Royal Stoke Hospital. Unveiling it in Pride month is really important as we need to actively show our support for colleagues from LGBTQ+ communities.&nbsp;Both the colleagues we work with and the people we care for come from a wide range of background [sic.] and represent many different communities. It is important we celebrate our differences and work together to ensure everyone is made to feel welcome. I the [sic.] look forward to seeing the banner up at County Hospital.</blockquote>&nbsp;Years of “gender oppression”?Other outraged X users focused their ire on UHNM's “gender” policy:<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">You stop chemically castrating gay boys yet?— Chris {∜} (@ChrisFourOhFour) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisFourOhFour/status/1780003381316141090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>In its <a href="https://www.uhnm.nhs.uk/media/9035/20230929-c64-supporting-transgender-individuals-foi-ref-196-2324-2-of-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Policy Document</a> “Supporting Transgender Individuals,” UHNM sets out its commitment to “promoting an inclusive, diverse workforce … supporting human rights … to ensure that people are not discriminated against or disadvantaged…"UHNM's attitude toward woke ideology is perhaps best encapsulated in clause 1.4 which states:<blockquote>When a person transitions as an adult, sometimes in middle age or later, the years of oppression of the person’s gender identity at any age may have contributed to a deteriorating mental state. The treatment is therefore life enhancing and even lifesaving and is not taken lightly; it is not a lifestyle choice.</blockquote>&nbsp;Is “Demi” code-language for “moral”?According to <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-demisexual-5082519" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">verywellmind</a>, the word “demisexuality” became more mainstream as far back as 2008. They describe a demisexual person as someone who,<blockquote>experiences sexual attraction only when they feel a true emotional bond with another person.</blockquote><a href="https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-demiromanticism-means" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WebMD</a> defines a “demiromantic” person as,<blockquote>someone who only develops romantic feelings for another person when they have a strong emotional connection to them.</blockquote>Whatever one's views on the other 19 items on the list, it is possible that the inclusion of two terms that signify a move toward traditional morality is a step in the right direction, if only to give young (and older) people a "woke" option of refusing close physical contact outside the bounds of marriage.

flags.jpg

Public outraged at use of taxpayer money

21 'inclusion' flags but none for heterosexuals

Pfizer's shots don't work for kids

What does Pfizer have to say about it?

Related Articles

Mother of COVID Hospital Protocol Victim: ‘He Drove There and Left in a Body Bag’

MSM blackout on massive rallies in Japan against WHO and super-warp-speed 100-day vaccines

Got milk? It might not be real

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Latest Articles

Made in China: How Mao's minions weaponize DEI to subvert America

Johns Hopkins Homeschooling: Big Ed Seeking to Control Next Generation of Home Educators

Danger ahead! Changing the natural world with genetic engineering and artificial intelligence

21 'inclusion' flags but none for heterosexuals