The UK Prime Minister admitted that the COVID-19 vaccines don’t work as initially advertised.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted on video that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent individuals from catching or spreading coronavirus.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson just admitted that the COVID-19 vaccines available in the country do not prevent individuals from spreading or catching coronavirus. This comes as the United Kingdom is contemplating a vaccine passport to enter various public places, including night clubs.
Before the shocking admission, the UK PM claimed that the vaccine provides “a lot of protection against serious illness and death.” However, he ultimately conceded that the vaccine “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you from passing it on.” Johnson, who has grown highly unpopular due to his handling of COVID-19, added “so now, it’s time to get you a booster.”
BREAKING: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson concedes vaccination does NOT offer protection from catching COVID, nor from spreading it.
Many people falsely believe that the COVID-19 vaccine prevents the transmission of coronavirus despite evidence indicating that it doesn’t, even refuting frequent statements made by health officials confirming the same. This comes as people continue to be infected with COVID-19 despite being vaccinated.
As National File reported, the CDC director admitted this in August: “Walensky said that the controversial vaccines are working ‘exceptionally well’ at keeping people from experiencing severe illness and death after they contract COVID-19, but admits, ‘what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.’ She then urged the vaccinated to go back to wear masks.”
During a CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden yesterday mocked Americans who want the freedom to not be injected with a vaccine that does not prevent them from catching or spreading coronavirus.
“Freedom!” Biden said, mocking Americans. “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. No, I mean, come on! Freedom?”
Biden says it concerns him that people make vaccine mandates a political issue:
“Freedom!,” POTUS said mockingly. “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID. No, I mean, come on! Freedom?!” pic.twitter.com/HFD7D8bL5q
Biden’s rhetoric appears to contradict Johnson’s, as the President appears to be suggesting that unvaccinated people pose a risk to others, despite vaccination failing to prevent the transmission of COVID-19.
Given that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of COVID-19, the CDC is considering changing the guidelines of what it means to be “fully vaccinated” in an effort to push “booster” shots.
“Right now, we don’t have booster eligibility for all people, currently, so we are going to, we have not yet changed the definition of fully vaccinated. We will continue to look at this. We may need to update our definition of fully vaccinated in the future. But right now, what I would say is if you’re eligible for a booster, go ahead and get your booster. And we will continue to follow,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky.
Despite widespread vaccination and claims it will keep people from suffering serious COVID-19 symptoms, over 40% of people who recently died of the virus in the state of Maryland were “fully vaccinated” against the virus, according to former CDC Director Robert Redfield.
“A lot of times people may feel it’s a rare event that fully vaccinated people die. I happen to be the senior advisor to Governor Hogan in the state of Maryland. In the last 6-8 weeks, more than 40 percent of people who died in Maryland were fully vaccinated,” Redfield said in response to the death of Colin Powell.
Biden has canceled contracts for southern border fencing
The DHS has approved a $455,000 contract to build a security fence around Joe Biden’s luxury beach home in Delaware. The contract was awarded to Turnstone Holdings LLC on September 21 and construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
The DHS, while ordered to stop construction of President Donald Trump’s wall along the southern border, is listed as the main awarding and funding office of the contract while the Secret Service is listed as the subagency. One of Biden’s first acts as president was to halt funding for a border wall along the border with Mexico.
Biden bought the North Shores home in 2017 and paid $2.7 million for the property, according to county tax records. He has visited the property twice during his presidency, prompting strict security measures for local residents.
During his first visit in June, several checkpoints were set up and a local pond was closed. For his second visit, the U.S. Coast Guard created security zones in the Lewes-Rehoboth Canal and the Atlantic Ocean.
Biden’s taxpayer funded fence for his beach house comes as the southern border continues to experience a record illegal immigration surge. This week, data released by US Customs and Border Protection revealed that 1.7 million migrants have crossed the border in 2021, the highest number since 1986.
It was recently announced that other border security projects would also be shelved. This month, the DHS announced it would be cancelling “the remaining border barrier contracts located within US Border Patrol’s Laredo Sector and all border barrier contracts located in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.”
Per the department, the unspent funds will be spent on environmental projects including “biological, cultural, and natural resource surveys” in the border region.
Hey folks, I’m Attorney Andrew Branca, for Law of Self Defense.
(Law of Self Defense) Today I’d like to share with you a tragic story out of New Mexico involving the actor Alec Baldwin (perhaps best known for his small but powerful role in the 1992 movie “Glengarry Glenn Ross”—“coffee is for closers!”—and his long-standing role as boss Jack Donaghy on the television program “30 Rock.”)
Alec Baldwin discharged a prop firearm on the set of a Western he was making in New Mexico on Thursday, killing the film’s director of photography and wounding the movie’s director, the authorities said.
The cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, 42, was killed, and the director, Joel Souza, 48, was injured … . The circumstances of the shooting are under investigation.
It’s separately reported that Alec Baldwin was also a co-producer of the movie.
Was This An Accident? Negligence? Recklessness/Involuntary Manslaughter?
I’ve received a veritable tsunami of inquiries as to my take on this tragedy, in the context of the fatal force involved—Alec Baldwin’s firing of the gun in his hand, with fatal results—presumably without any actual intent to kill the victim, Ms. Hutchins.
Could this shooting death be characterized as an accident? In fact, there is a legal defense of accident, much like there is a legal defense of self-defense for cases of intentional shootings, and both are “perfect” defenses—meaning, if accepted by legal process, the legal defense of accident frees the person of all legal liability (both criminal and civil).
So, perhaps this was an innocent accident, in the legal sense, and Alec Baldwin ought to bear no legal responsibility, either criminally or civilly, for the death of Ms. Hutchins.
On the other hand, perhaps this shooting death is more accurately characterized as negligent, or perhaps even reckless—and if reckless, then certainly as involuntary manslaughter, which New Mexico law defines (in the context of this case) as an unlawful killing committed “in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death … without due caution and circumspection.”
Under New Mexico law involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony normally punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The most common form of involuntary manslaughter committed generally is drunk driving resulting in a fatality, but of course a firearm being handled lawfully but “without due caution and circumspection” that results in a death fits the statutory definition equally well.
So, in the shooting death of Ms. Hutchins by Alec Baldwin, are we looking at an accident, free of legal liability, or an act of negligence carrying civil liability, or a criminally reckless killing (an involuntary manslaughter) good for a felony prison sentence? What factors do we consider in distinguishing between accident and negligence and reckless killing?
To be clear, our goal here is not necessarily to arrive at a definitive legal answer—I’m not sure we really know enough facts with enough certainty to do that.
But if we can’t immediately arrive at the right legal answer, at the very least we can understand how to ask the right legal question—and that’s what we’ll do right here, right now.
The Legal Defense of Accident
Legally speaking the defense of accident applies when the harm caused could not have been foreseen by the person who caused the harm, and who was otherwise acting in a normal and non-negligent manner.
For example, imagine that your elderly aunt asked you to move a heavy plant from one side of her apartment to the other. You carry the plant to the new spot, place it on the floor—but unknown, and unknowable, to you, the floor joists in that spot are rotten. The plant falls through the floor, lands on the head of your aunt’s neighbor downstairs, and kills the neighbor.
Because you were acting in a normal and non-negligent manner, and could not have foreseen that the floor joists were rotten, the death that results from your admitted conduct was a genuine accident in the legal sense, and as a result you have no legal liability for the death that resulted. As the saying goes, poop happens.
Negligence Creates Civil Liability
Liability is acquired, however, if you were acting negligently when you caused the harm.
For example, imagine that you were driving down a neighborhood road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. You’re in a bit of a hurry, however, so you’re driving at a solid 35 miles per hour. There’s no reason for you to think, and you don’t think that you’re creating any exceptional risk by driving a bit over the speed limit—heck, plenty of the people in the neighborhood do so all the time. Suddenly, however, a child dashes out into the street, and that 10 miles per hour over the limit is what prevents you from stopping before your vehicle hits and kills the child.
Here you were not acting in a normal and non-negligent manner. We all have a generalized legal duty to not cause unjustified harm to others. Your intentional disregard of the stated speed limit violated that legal duty, even though you did not know you were creating an exceptional risk of death.
By violating that generalized legal duty to not cause harm to others you were acting negligently, and your negligence means that you’ve acquired at least civil liability for the death you caused by your negligent conduct.
The parents would presumably sue you for wrongful death in civil court, and win a judgment as the result of your negligent conduct.
Recklessness Creates Criminal Liability
Even then, however, you don’t necessarily have criminal liability for the child’s death. Criminal liability requires more than mere negligence—the failure to meet a duty to not cause harm.
Criminal liability requires recklessness.
Recklessness occurs when you not only violate a legal duty to not cause harm, but you explicitly know you are doing so, and you intentionally disregard that risk.
To put it another way, you are creating a risk of death or serious bodily injury, are aware that you are doing so, but choose to disregard the risk and continue with your conduct regardless. And the bad outcome occurs.
The classic illustration for criminal recklessness causing death (often labeled involuntary manslaughter) is the drunk driving fatality mentioned above.
You know (as we all know, so it is “common knowledge” in legal terms) that driving while intoxicated creates a risk to others of death or serious bodily injury. When you become voluntarily intoxicated and operate a motor vehicle you are aware of the risk you are creating, and you are choosing to disregard that risk.
Should a death result, your recklessness makes that not an accident or even mere negligence, but a crime—involuntary manslaughter.
Note there is no requirement that the death be intentional. The person driving home drunk isn’t intending to kill anyone—they just want to get home. Indeed, were the death intentional we’d be talking about murder or voluntary manslaughter, and not involuntary manslaughter based on recklessness rather than intent.
I am, of course, as presumably we all are, working under the assumption that Alec Baldwin did not intend the death of Ms. Hutchins. That lack of intent, however, does nothing to diminish potential liability for the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
So What Was It? Accident, Negligence, or Recklessness?
So, with that legal foundation in mind, what can we make of Alec Baldwin’s shooting death of Ms. Hutchins? Could it have been an innocent accident? Or is it merely civil negligence? Or is it criminal recklessness, and involuntary manslaughter? The answer will, of course, depend on what the facts are ultimately turnout to be, but we can certainly explore the range of outcomes that would be on the table.
Innocent accidents can happen with firearms, but they are rare—and the reason they are rare is that firearms are recognized legally as inherently dangerous instruments, and therefore the standard of care for handling them is very high.
Accident: What That Would Look Like In This Case
What might an genuine accident with a handgun look like? Well, imagine a gun that has an unseen defect, such that when the barrel is brought up to the horizontal position the gun discharges without any press of the trigger.
This is clearly not how a gun is supposed to fire, nor would any reasonable person expect a gun to fire under such circumstances.
If the gun being handled by Alec Baldwin is found to have such a defect, and his handling of the gun was otherwise non-negligent, he would have a good argument that the gun discharging and killing Ms. Hutchins was a genuine accident for which he should bear no civil or criminal liability.
Negligence: What That Would Look Like In This Case
On the other hand, a defective gun doesn’t necessarily mean there was no negligence involved, and if there is negligence there cannot be an innocent accident and zero legal liability—there must, at least, be civil liability.
In our hypothetical with the defective gun, for example, it may be true that the discharge of the gun was not foreseeable by Alec Baldwin, and therefore not really in his control—but the direction in which the gun was pointed certainly was in his control.
The death of Ms. Hutchins by the discharge of the gun could not have occurred had the gun not been pointed at her—and that pointing of the gun at her would certainly seem to constitute negligence.
Anyone trained in firearms safety—and anyone handling an inherently dangerous instrument like a firearm can be reasonably expected to have a duty to be trained on its safe operation around others—would know that one of the four primary safety rules of handling firearms is that you do not point the muzzle of the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Pointing the gun at Ms. Hutchins then, at least under circumstances in which the gun discharges and kills her, would certainly qualify as negligence at a minimum, and thus create civil liability for her death.
Recklessness: What That Would Look Like In This Case
But the potential liability doesn’t end there, because we must also consider the possibility that the killing was the result not of innocent accident, and not merely of civil negligence, but rather the result of criminal recklessness.
Let’s change our hypothetical to remove the defect from the gun. Now the gun operates normally, and will not discharge unless the trigger is depressed. Imagine also that some of the news reporting of this event accurately describes the discharge of the weapon as follows.
Let me be clear—I have no idea if what I’m about to describe will turn out to accurately describe the events in this case. I read such a description of the events online, but have no idea if the person providing that description has any idea what they are talking about. Here we’re using that description of events not as a claim that they represent what actually happened, but merely as a hypothetical to explore the legal issues that could arise in this case.
The day was running long, the actors and crew were getting tired, another scene had to be shot yet again, and in an effort to add some levity to the circumstances Alec Baldwin, holding a firearm in his hands that he believed to be unloaded, jokingly told the director of photography Ms. Hutchins and director Joel Souza, “We have to shoot that scene again? How about if I just shoot you both, instead.” He then points the firearm at them and depresses the trigger, resulting in the gun discharging, killing Ms. Hutchins, and wounding Mr. Souza.
In that last hypothetical we have no innocent accident, and we have no mere civil negligence—instead, we have, with the pointing of the weapon at the victims and the deliberate press of the trigger, criminal recklessness.
The gun did not go off for unforeseeable reasons, such as a hidden defect. The gun discharged because it operated as designed—to fire when the trigger is depressed. Of course, the gun must be loaded when the trigger is depressed in order to cause harm—but as the tragic consequences here amply demonstrate, the gun was loaded. It would be the duty of the person wielding the gun to ensure it was unloaded if they wished to cause no harm when they depressed the trigger—and clearly that duty was not met.
Second, anyone handling an inherently dangerous object such as a firearm would be presumed to possess the safety knowledge needed to handle that firearm safely around others—a claim of ignorance is no defense when one is handling inherently dangerous objects.
That guns are inherently dangerous is common knowledge presumed to be known to everyone. That the rounds fired come out of the muzzle and travel with lethal force and distance is also common knowledge presumed to be known to everyone. That guns discharge when their triggers are depressed is also common knowledge presumed to be known to everyone.
Because the various common knowledge just described would be presumed to be known to everyone, including Alec Baldwin handling the firearm, when he pointed the weapon at Ms. Hutchins and pressed the trigger (again, speaking solely within the context of our hypothetical, not as a claim of what actually happened), then he was necessarily aware of the risk of death he was creating, and deliberately disregarding that risk, with the result being the death of Ms. Hutchins. (The same would apply, of course, to Alec Baldwin’s violation of the gun handling safety rule of presuming at all times that a gun is loaded.)
When you are aware you are creating a risk of death, deliberate disregard that risk, and death results—that’s the very definition of criminal recklessness—commonly referred to as involuntary manslaughter.
Implications of Baldwin as Both Shooter and Producer
By the way, before I move on to discussing criminal recklessness, there’s another factor in this tragic event that will likely play a role in civil liability, and perhaps criminal liability, if any, for Alec Baldwin.
so, Alec Baldwin was both the actor handling the firearm when it discharged—and an actor might argue that he is at the “bottom” of the safety responsibility ladder for something like a movie set—but he was also a co-producer for the film—which would place him at the “top” of the safety responsibility ladder.
In theory, an actor at the “bottom” and the producer at the “top” might each point their finger at each other in the case of a tragic event like this. That is, the actor might argue that the producer ought to have had better safety protocols in place, and the producer might argue that the actor had the ultimately responsibility for safe handling of the firearm.
In this case, however, Alec Baldwin occupies both seats. So he can point his finger in this manner if he wishes, but ultimately he’ll be pointing it at himself.
And this implication could well apply not merely in the civil law context, within the scope of negligence, but also within the criminal law context, within the scope of recklessness and involuntary manslaughter.
And Now You Know the Right Question
So, whether this tragic event should qualify as a genuine innocent accident, or merely civil negligence, or perhaps criminal recklessness and involuntary manslaughter, will depend on how the facts fit into the legal framework I’ve just described.
I certainly don’t yet know the actual facts in any concrete detail, and I expect few of us do.
But if we can’t yet arrive at the right answer, because we lack the necessary facts, at least we now know how to ask the right questions—because we know the correct legal framework in which to place those facts once they are revealed to us, and arrive at a correct legal conclusion.
OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.
The Supreme Court is not immediately blocking the Texas law that bans most abortions, but has agreed to hear arguments in the case in early November.
The justices said Friday they will decide whether the Department of Justice has the right to sue over the law. It appears that the court does not intend to address the merits of the Texas law in that case.
The also indicated they would hear a challenge to the law brought by abortion providers.
Answering that question of whether the DOJ has standing to sue will help determine whether the law should be blocked while legal challenges continue. The court is moving at an unusually fast pace that suggests it plans to make a decision quickly. Arguments are set for Nov. 1.
The court’s action leaves in place for the time being a law that clinics say has led to an 80% reduction in abortions in the nation’s second-largest state.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she would have blocked the law now.
“The promise of future adjudication offers cold comfort, however, for Texas women seeking abortion care, who are entitled to relief now,” Sotomayor wrote.The law has been in effect since September, aside from a district court-ordered pause that lasted just 48 hours, and bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.
That’s well before the Supreme Court’s major abortion decisions allow states to prohibit abortion, although the court has agreed to hear an appeal from Mississippi asking it to overrule those decisions, in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
But the Texas law was written to evade early federal court review by putting enforcement of it into the hands of private citizens, rather than state officials.
The focus of the high court arguments will not be on the abortion ban, but whether the Justice Department can sue and obtain a court order that effectively prevents the law from being enforced, the Supreme Court said in its brief order.
If the law stays in effect, “no decision of this Court is safe. States need not comply with, or even challenge, precedents with which they disagree. They may simply outlaw the exercise of whatever rights they disfavor,” the Biden administration wrote in a brief filed earlier in the day.
Other state-enforced bans on abortion before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks, have been blocked by courts because they conflict with Supreme Court precedents.
“Texas should not obtain a different result simply by pairing its unconstitutional law with an unprecedented enforcement scheme designed to evade the traditional mechanisms for judicial review,” the administration wrote.
A day earlier, the state urged the court to leave the law in place, saying the federal government lacked the authority to file its lawsuit challenging the Texas ban.
The Justice Department filed suit over the law after the Supreme Court rejected an earlier effort by abortion providers to put the measure on hold temporarily.
In early October, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled for the administration, putting the law on hold and allowing abortions to resume.
Two days later, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the law back into effect.
The court already is hearing arguments on Dec. 1 in the Mississippi case in which that state is calling for the court to overrule the Roe and Casey decisions.
The Devil is in the Details and The Trends Look Like Hell
Some may want to “Follow the Science” since a majority feel it is correct but math provides the true answers. Math takes the data and determines the trends. While we must learn from the past 22 months of this pandemic we also must understand the current trends so we can determine the correct path forward.
In the first 3 months of 2020 in the US, 3,603 people died from Covid-19. In April the deaths accelerated and varied between 9k and 15k per week. Eventually, 333,199 died between April 1, 2020 and Dec 31, 2020 for a daily average of 1,216 deaths.
During the October 22nd 2020 debate Joe Biden stated, “Folks, I will take care of this. I will end this. I will make sure we have a plan”.
According to www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ there have been an additional 414,890 deaths from Covid-19 between Jan 1, 2021 and Oct 20, 2021. That equates to a new daily average of 1,421 deaths. The 2021 daily rate is 16.9% greater than 2020. In the math world we would say the plan has failed.
The following is an analysis of breakthrough cases and deaths in Maryland, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Covid-19 breakthrough cases or deaths are in fully vaccinated persons. Each state records their Covid-19 data differently which makes some data more readily available. It is practically impossible to get all the data for these states on the exact same dates.
Less than 0.71% sounds pretty low doesn’t it? The state of Maryland implies the vaccines are doing their job as Dr. Fauci has told us over and over again. Yet what is the trend?
Between Sept 22, 2021, and Oct 10, 2021, Maryland had an additional 21,864 Covid-19 cases which 7,233 or 33.1% of the cases were classified as breakthrough cases. Why doesn’t the state of Maryland give you this data versus the 0.71% number?
During this same period, Maryland lost 259 citizens to Covid-19. Of those 259 souls, 77 or 29.7% were fully vaccinated. Again, why does Maryland.gov water down that data?
In Massachusetts, for the four week ending period of Aug 28 through Sep 18, there were 44,773 Covid-19 cases which 37.1% were classified as breakthrough and 269 covid-19 deaths of which, 86 or 32.0% were in fully vaccinated people. For the four week ending period of Sep 25 through Oct 16, there were 38,228 Covid-19 cases which 40.8% were classified as breakthrough and 380 Covid-19 deaths of which, 154 or 40.5% were in fully vaccinated people.
These trends detail an obvious failure of the vaccine, but news outlets state that this fully vaccinated death count of 371 is only a very small percentage of the total vaccinated. What should be troubling to the Massachusetts public is those fully vaccinated account for an average of 39.2% of all deaths in the first two weeks of October.
In Pennsylvania, the acting Sec. of Health Alison Beam stated at a news conference at Lancaster General Hospital, “With nearly seven million Pennsylvanians fully vaccinated, the data makes it clear: the vaccines are safe and effective at preventing severe illness from Covid-19.”
However, recent analysis of cases and deaths between September 15 and Oct 4 show that in 132k cases, 26.1% of them were classified as breakthrough and 305 (26.5%) deaths out of a total of 1,153 were in fully vaccinated people. But Sec. of Health Alison Beam makes no mention of that.
While Vermont is a small state, the fully vaccinated share of the total loss of life from Covid-19 is an even higher percentage than any of the states reviewed so far. In September, according to the Vermont Daily Chronicle, 76% of those who died of Covid-19 were fully vaccinated.
When we look to the UK, the picture looks as bad as in Vermont except on a larger scale which should be a concern as our country’s numbers tend to lag the UK’s by a few weeks.
The following table from the UK government can be found here, on page 15. It shows that between week 37 and week 40, there was a total of 2,805 covid-19 deaths and 2,136 or 76.1% were fully vaccinated. These deaths happened within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test.
Recently, Dr. Robert Malone, who developed the mRNA technology, was interviewed on The Jimmy Dore Show and stated, “overuse of vaccines will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccinations”.
Vaccinating those that aren’t at risk drives this development of further variants which could be killing more of our elderly.
Hopefully, we can learn from these trending hardships in the UK, that a booster shot that was designed for the initial variant discovered in the fall of 2019 can’t be the silver bullet against the variants in the 2021/2022 Covid-19 season. When will we realize that statements like, “we can vaccinate ourselves out of a pandemic”, could actually be very dangerous to our young and killing our elderly?
Why is our 2021 daily death toll, with vaccine use, 16.9% greater than in 2020 when no vaccine was readily available?
If a current protocol has failed, we need to discard it. If the majority of deaths are in a specific age group we need to focus on that age group and protect their lives. We need to stop spending time on scare tactics with other groups who are at minimal risk of death, by coercing them or mandating them into getting an experimental vaccine without knowledge of long-term side effects.
The old saying, “knowledge is power, get some” is more relevant than ever now. Math is a beautiful thing.
Lab grown meat offers private corporations the opportunity to place intellectual property rights on meat development and thus create a financial windfall, at the expense of human health.
Corporations that control the food supply through central production and distribution can also control populations and countries.
Lab-grown meat originates from stem cells harvested from muscle tissue and multiplied in the lab — but the ability to culture tissue cells does not mean the product has health benefits for the end user.
Scientists are now working on lab-grown meat made from human cells that are being harvested from the inside of your cheek. While some argue over whether this is cannibalism, another question must be asked about how this will impact the spread of disease.
July 12, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a public meeting to talk about what to call lab-grown meat. As reported in The Atlantic, at the end of the meeting there was no consensus. The war of words was aimed at choosing an association that would evoke a specific emotional response in the consumer.
Various speakers got up and called the lab growth “clean meat,” “artificial meat,” “in vitro meat,” “cell culture products,” “cultured meat” or “culture tissue.” Each term had its advocates and critics.
For example, the beef producers didn’t like the term “clean meat.” Danielle Beck, a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association told the reporter from The Atlantic the term is “inherently offensive to traditional meat producers, as if real meat is somehow dirty.”
However, that’s exactly what the fake meat industry would like you to believe. In fact, the lab-grown meat market rests on the shoulders of the claim that eating real meat is destroying our planet. Singapore was the first country to give regulatory approval for products that look like meat and did not come from real animals.
The decision paved the way for the rest of the world, and today fake meat is becoming so popular that you’ll find it in most Walmarts, Targets, other grocery stores and some popular chain restaurants. The fake meat industry offered their product as a light in a dark world, as many were laboring under the excessive news reports of COVID-19 cases.
It may have seemed that the big tech giants were looking out for the food supply at an unprecedented time in history. But you don’t have to look too deeply into what’s happening to discover that patented fake meat is not about “saving the planet” or “sustainability” but, instead, is just another foray into controlling populations and amassing great wealth.
Lab-Grown meat is about Big Business
The food critic for the Financial Times wrote a piece in early September 2021, in which he made a strong case for how lab-grown meat is not about sustainability or making “green” decisions but, rather about intellectual property (IP) and creating a financial windfall.
He took a historical perspective on IP, listing the patents that have been filed protecting breakfast cereals, carbonated beverages, drugs, vaccines, genetically modified plants and pesticides. In each case the IP owned by Kellogg, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Big Pharma and agrichemical businesses was the lifeblood of their financial success. He writes:
“Currently, there’s not a lot of IP in the meat industry … Saving animal lives, preventing the clear-cutting of rainforest, even the reduction of methane farts don’t excite investors — those changes can’t translate to profit.
“The holy grail is replacing the meat we consume with a proprietary product, owning the IP on meat. Coca-Cola and McDonald’s managed to grow patented food products into two of the top food companies on the globe by market cap, but a patent on animal-free ‘meat’ could entirely dwarf their achievements.”
— Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) April 20, 2021
The idea is one of his core tenets in his new book in which he lays out how to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Mind you, this book was written by a man who built a 65,993 square-foot (6,131 square-meter) home with a 23-car garage, 20-person cinema and 24 bathrooms. He owns five other homes, a horse farm, four private jets and a “collection” of helicopters.
In his new climate book, Gates fails to acknowledge how “green revolution” model pushed by his foundation has harmed farmers + environment, while lining pockets of multinational agribusiness corps. #TheDefender: SUBSCRIBE TODAY: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/HjJqvuZVgr
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 1, 2021
According to one study reported in Business Today, his annual carbon footprint is 7,493 metric tons of carbon, much of which is produced by his aircraft. In an article published in Forbes, March 22, one reporter writes:
“Now, I don’t necessarily agree with Gates. And I hate the idea of governments deciding what their citizens should eat (which seems to be what Gates is suggesting). But my job is to help you make money. And there’s no question that there’s billions to be made in the technology behind plant-based meat.”
Unfortunately, that may be the path that many will take to acquire wealth over health. Beyond Meat is already worth $12 billion10 and it’s projected to double by 2025. And yet, as the Forbes reporter points out, the meat industry is the tip of the iceberg.
Synthetic biology uses technology to allow scientists to program life. It reconfigures DNA so that it produces something entirely new.
This is the technology that Beyond Meat uses to create more “realistic” burgers using soybeans. He also points out that Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines are made of a synthetic strand of genetic code and goes on to write, “I believe, with the possible exception of artificial intelligence (AI), synthetic biology has the biggest potential of any disruptive technology to radically reshape our world.”
Control food supply = Control populations and countries
“So no, I don’t think the poorest 80 countries will be eating synthetic meat. I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”
It is the last sentence in that paragraph that makes the most sense as you consider how Gates and other technocrats are aiming at controlling populations through central production and distribution of food. He says, “change the behavior of people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.” Promoting lab-grown protein is not about sustainability but, rather, about wealth and power.
— Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) May 13, 2021
Using intellectual property, tech giants hope to replace living animals with patented plant- and animal-derived alternatives, which will effectively control food supply. And Gates’ 242,000 acres of farmland spread across Illinois, Louisiana, California, Iowa and nearly one dozen other states appear to be earmarked for genetically engineered corn and soy crops. In other words, he’s farming the basic crops needed for (plant-based) fake meat and processed foods.
Lab-grown meat alternatives differ from their vegetarian counterparts by virtue of initially starting with cell cultures from living animals. Mosa Meat grows their meat after harvesting a small number of cells from livestock “who are then returned, almost unscathed, to their fields.”
As described in Popular Mechanics, Memphis Meats, in which Gates is a serious investor, tries to avoid animals whenever possible. Instead, they use cells that have been procured from animal biopsies.
In other words, when a veterinarian has decided to biopsy an area of an animal to make a medical determination about an abnormal growth, Memphis Meats harvests cells that would have otherwise been discarded and grows those into lab grown meat. Swapping traditional, whole food grown by small farmers for mass-produced fake foods is part of the plan for The Great Reset.
The objective is to control the entire food supply. To that end, researchers and manufacturers are also looking at milk proteins made from genetically engineered Trichoderma reesei fungus to produce a dairy-like protein casein and whey. Popular Science named Perfect Day’s animal-free whey protein as the Grand Award winner in the engineering category of the 100 greatest innovations of 2020.
The EAT Forum, co-founded by the Wellcome Trust, developed a Planetary Health Diet designed to be applied to the global population. It entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90% and replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.
Their largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system by working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives. In other words, once tech giants have control of meat, dairy, cereals and oils, they will be the ones profiting from and controlling the food supply.
Private companies that control the food supply will ultimately control countries and entire populations. Biotech will eventually push farmers and ranchers out of the equation and will threaten food security. In other words, the work being done in the name of sustainability and saving the planet will give greater control to private corporations.
Health dangers associated with linoleic acid
It’s important to realize that whether it is plant-based or lab-grown, fake meat is a processed food. Imitation meat is not better, or even equal, to real meat. Foods that are not directly from the ground, vines, bushes, trees, bodies of water or animals are considered processed.
Lab-grown meat starts with a muscle sample from a cow. Once in the lab, technicians separate stem cells from the sample and then multiply those dramatically. The cells differentiate into fibers that form muscle tissue. Mosa Meat believes that one tissue sample can yield 80,000 quarter-pounders.
Tissue growth inside an animal occurs when the blood supply delivers appropriate nutrients to produce healthy muscle growth. This requires that the animal is fed a whole and balanced diet, from which the body extracts the necessary nutrients in an appropriate amount to feed the cells.
The human body then extracts the nutrients found in regeneratively and biodynamically pastured meat. However, as science has demonstrated in the last two decades, growing cells on sugar causes growth, but will not yield health. The sheer ability to grow lab-cultured meat does not indicate that the end product will have any health benefit to the end user.
Plant-based fake meat contains excess amounts of omega-6 fat in the form of linoleic acid (LA). This is one of the most significant contributors to metabolic dysfunction.
In my opinion, this metabolic poison is the primary contributor to the rising rates of chronic disease. LA leads to severe mitochondrial dysfunction, decreased NAD+ levels, obesity, insulin resistance and a radical decrease in the ability to generate energy.
The genetic engineering used to produce the flavor and texture of real meat does not reproduce healthy fatty acid composition because the substrate is canola and sunflower oils as the primary sources of fat.
The sunflower oil used in both Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meats is 68% LA, which is an extraordinarily high amount.
It is dangerous because LA is susceptible to oxidation and causes oxidation byproducts called OXLAMs (oxidative linoleic acid metabolites). These byproducts devastate your DNA, protein, mitochondria and cellular membranes. This means that fake meat is failing all measures of sustainability and health.
Have you considered cultured meat from human cells?
While lab-grown meat and dairy products may sound like science fiction, the next step for food manufacturers comes directly out of the 1973 dystopian film “Soylent Green.” The science fiction movie takes place in New York in 2022. In the story, the Earth is severely overpopulated, and people are living in the streets.
For sustenance, people are given rations of water and Soylent Green, which supposedly is a high-protein food made from plankton. In the end, you discover in this futuristic nightmare fantasy of controlling big corporations, that the high-protein drink is actually made from people.
Now, just months away from 2022, scientists are working on lab-grown “meat” made from human cells that are harvested from the inside of human cheeks. This grisly product was first presented as ‘art’ by a scientist and founder of the biotech firm Spiderwort. Tech Times reported Nov. 22, 2020, that:
“A new ‘DIY meal kit’ that can be used to grow steaks that are made mostly from human cells was just recently nominated by the London-based Design Museum as the ‘design of the year.’
“Called ‘Ouroboros Steak,’ this is named right after the circular symbol of a snake known for eating itself tail-first. This hypothetical kit would later on come with everything that one person would need in order to use their own cells to grow miniature human meat steaks …”
These kits are not commercially available — yet. But it begs the question of what possesses someone to think that eating a lump of meat made from your own body could be a viable idea? The question must also be raised about whether this is cannibalism.
Those defending the concept claim that since you’re eating your own body, it’s not cannibalism. However, if it ever becomes commercially available, what’s to prevent someone from growing meat from other people’s cells — and selling it?
And the ick factor aside, how could this impact the spread of disease? For example, tribal cannibalism in Papua, New Guinea, led to a prion disease, which nearly wiped out a tribe of people.
In many villages, after an individual died, the villagers would cook and consume the body in an act of grief. Scientists who studied the tribe believe that one person developed a sporadic incident of Crutchfield-Jakob disease, also known as mad cow disease. Eating the neurological tissue then spread the disease throughout the tribe.
It doesn’t take much to imagine that the strange and unusual side effects being reported by people after receiving a COVID-19 injection may have long-term effects on body tissue. What happens when you culture and eat that body tissue, from yourself or someone else?
It is time for Christians to act strategically in the face of widespread crisis, government overreach, and the growing cancel culture.
By Ché Ahn
We are in the most historic and dramatic season for the global church. As we entered into a new decade in 2020, we witnessed the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis impacting every nation of the earth, and something shifted in history. With the extraordinary global shaking—from the pandemic and lockdowns to economic hardship, riots, the 2020 election, and the progressive Left government—it is all serving as the backdrop for what I believe will be the greatest revival and reformation in history.
Church, It’s Time to Roll Up Our Sleeves
To many Americans (myself included), the 2020 election was a stolen election, which exposed how deep the corruption is in our government. Regardless of your vantage point, it is clear that conservative values lost ground as a result of the 2020 election and that reformation is needed now in America more than ever before.
Perhaps more than anything, the lost election has created more resolve in conservative evangelical believers to “roll up our sleeves” and get to work in reforming our states and our nation.
A critical factor in this equation is that bad eschatology (for example, the doctrine that things are going to get worse and worse until Jesus raptures us out of here) has largely caused Christians to be passive members of society. In addition to eschatology, there has been Platonic thinking or Greek-inspired dualism in the church that has led so many to believe that only pastors are called to ministry and the only responsibility for everyday Christians is to sit in the pews on Sunday.
In reality, there is no such division. If you are a Christian, God sees us all as ministers, as the book of 1 Peter tells us. God expects you and me to transform society.
Indeed, Christians are called to be the ekklesia—the church. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus used this Greek term to name the church because the ekklesia in ancient Greece, specifically in Athens, were the citizens called out to legislate and decide what was good for their city or nation. The ekklesia formed a legislative assembly that had the authority to pass laws and determine policies to protect their rights as citizens.
Similarly, God wants us as believers to legislate, not only through prayer but also our God-given privilege in the USA to vote biblically. Jesus is calling us, His ekklesia, to be salt and light in our nation. Part of the way we can answer that call is by being active in all spheres of society—but especially the government.
We see how the adage of elections having consequences is true by the record number of evil and unbiblical executive orders that President Biden has shoved down our throats, as well as his attempt to pass H.R. 5 (“The Equality Act”) and H.R. 1, which would give the progressive Left power in perpetuity.
In this urgent hour in America, we cannot back down and remain silent. The church is called to shine the light of Christ into society, and we are also called to make disciples of nations, as Jesus commissioned us in the Gospel of Matthew.
As we help to fulfill the Great Commission, we are to bring heaven’s culture or “kingdom culture” to the nations. This does not mean setting up a theocracy but rather influencing society and bringing cultural transformation. The transformation of culture is part and parcel of the church’s call to be an apostolic people.
Revive California
At the start of 2021, I felt the Lord leading me to gather apostles from all over California to pray and strategize how to bring revival to our state. On February 11, a new initiative called Revive California was birthed as 12 key apostolic leaders gathered together, representing different denominations and spheres of culture including government, education, business, and the church.
Revive California was launched with the vision to see historic revival and reformation come to California. The fivefold strategy is as follows:
Prayer: Encourage every church to establish a house of prayer to contend for revival with unprecedented unity.
Leadership: Equip Christian leaders throughout California with unique training, seminars, and conference events to revive their love for Jesus.
Evangelism: Partner with evangelists for outreach events and activate local churches to provide discipleship.
Ekklesias: Empower every believer to start small groups in their sphere of influence to be the dynamic “church” and prepare for the harvest.
Reformation: Activate every believer to vote biblically and learn how to run for local, state, or national office.
Dare to Dream
The book of Romans says that where sin abounds, grace abounds more. For as much darkness that we have witnessed in California, the light of revival will shine all the brighter. I believe that God is going to use California as a template for revival and reformation for all 50 states. If significant cultural transformation can happen in California, then it can happen anywhere.
What would this social transformation look like? One major goal of Revive California is to see California become a pro-life and pro-family state. Other signs of transformation include championing religious liberty, advocating small government, being pro-business, eradicating corruption, and recognizing that the church will always be essential.
I believe Jesus’ words recorded in the Gospel of Mark: “With God all things are possible.” Dare to dream with me that these can be the values shared by all of America. Now is the time to act—so that we may see reformation sweep across our land!
Ché Ahn and his wife, Sue, have been the Senior Pastors of Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, California, since 1994. Ché serves as the President of Harvest International Ministry, a global apostolic network equipping leaders, multiplying churches, evangelizing, and bringing revival and reformation to more than 65 nations. He is also the International Chancellor of Wagner University, an international educational institution equipping believers for practical ministry.
Ché has authored numerous books. He is a sought-after conference minister, apostolic leader, and moves powerfully in spiritual gifts and healing.
Mark Zuckerberg’s unprecedented intervention in 2020’s election was not legal, argues former Attorney General Phil Kline.
Recent reporting on the influence of private funding of public elections by Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue and greatly appreciated by those of us who have been sounding the alarm about this for over a year. There’s more to the story, however, and the American people need to know the full truth.
The New York Post‘s front-page package of articles and op-eds did an admirable job of covering the scandal, bringing much-needed attention to an issue that many Americans knew little about, even though it was arguably the decisive factor in the 2020 presidential election.
The Amistad Project filed the first litigation seeking to block private funding of elections in September 2020, based on investigations that began months earlier. We have continued and expanded our investigate-and-litigate strategy ever since, with a particular focus on the swing states that ultimately decided the outcome of the election.
What we have uncovered through litigation, discovery, open records requests, and witness interviews is deeply disturbing. In addition to over $400 million from Zuckerberg, The Amistad Project has identified hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of additional contributions in the form of talent, information, and monies from leftist individuals and nonprofits. All told, the real total easily exceeds $1 billion.
As numerous reports have correctly pointed out, there were not explicit laws on the books forbidding the infusion of private monies into public election offices, primarily because such a scheme had never been attempted or anticipated prior to 2020. There are, however, longstanding laws that apply to the broader contours of the left’s election meddling operation, because efforts to interfere with free and fair elections to produce a desired outcome are as old as democracy itself.
For instance, if it can be proven that leftist organizations gave money to public officials with the intent of achieving a partisan electoral advantage, then those contributions are a direct violation of campaign finance law.
In addition, conspiracy to deprive “any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws” is a violation of longstanding civil rights laws. Zuckerberg-funded grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life heavily favored Democrat-leaning cities and counties, resulting in massive discrepancies in per-capita election funding between the urban core of major battleground states and the rest of those states. The conditions imposed as part of those grants further disadvantaged voters in less urban areas, for example by making it easier for urban voters to have flawed ballots “cured” by officials paid with Zuckerberg money. Moreover, as reported by Mollie Hemingway, these private interests actively worked to eviscerate state election integrity laws allowing for massive breaches in the chain of custody of the ballots in the urban core.
Voters in Zuckerberg-funded jurisdictions also benefited disproportionately from access to conveniences such as absentee ballot drop boxes – in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, one drop box was placed every four square miles and for every 4,000 voters; in the 59 counties carried by Trump in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters.
And this disparate impact was the result of a conspiracy.
The plan was outlined months in advance by David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager who later served as a senior political advisor to the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. In his book,A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump, Plouffe predicted that the 2020 general election would come down to a “block by block street fight” to turn out the vote in the urban core, especially cities such as Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Not long after that book came out, Plouffe’s previous employer, the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, began pouring staggering amounts of money – $350 million – into CTCL, which proceeded to use it to turn out left-leaning voters in cities such as Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.
Prior to 2020, CTCL’s annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million. But it had all the right connections – leaders such as Tiana Epps-Johnson and Whitney May, who are veterans of the George Soros-funded New Organizing Institute. And CTCL represents just one of scores of leftist nonprofits interfering with the 2020 election.
The Amistad Project is still fighting to hold Mark Zuckerberg, CTCL, and the other key players in this conspiracy accountable. In the coming days, for instance, we will be issuing demands as part of our civil litigation, and will continue consulting those with subpoena power, to demand the production of communications Zuckerberg and other substantial players and billionaires had with leftist nonprofits pertaining to the 2020 election.
Leftist election officials in the urban core of the swing states kicked America out of the counting room and invited billionaires in during the 2020 election. Elections must be transparent to be fair, and America deserves to see the records reflecting how these private interests funded by left-leaning billionaires managed the election.
When those communications are public, it will be clear that the left did far more than just corrupt our elections – they were actively working to turn government offices, which must act objectively, into campaign turn-out-the-vote centers for the Biden campaign.
The Loudoun County Public Schools board was informed of an alleged sexual assault that took place in a high school bathroom on May 28, 2021, an email from Superintendent Scott Ziegler shows.
The email, which was reported by WTOP-TV, alerted the school board that an incident took place at Stone Bridge High School in which a female student alleged she was sexually assaulted by a male student in the restroom.
The May 28 email reads:
Good Afternoon, Board Members, The purpose of this email is to provide you with information regarding an incident that occurred at Stone Bridge HS. This afternoon a female student alleged that a male student sexually assaulted her in the restroom. The LCSO [Sheriff’s Office] is investigating the matter. Secondary to the assault investigation, the female student’s parent responded to the school and caused a disruption by using threatening and profane language that was overheard by staff and students. Additional law enforcement units responded to the school to assist with the parent. The school’s counseling team is providing services for students who witnessed the parent’s behavior. The alleged victim is being tended to by LCSO.
According to WTOP-TV, the details of the incident were not disclosed to the school board because the board may be involved in student disciplinary actions, and they are rarely told the specifics of major incidents at schools.
The email demonstrates, however, that the board would have known about the alleged bathroom assault at a June 22 school board meeting, where Ziegler told the public there was no record of any sexual assaults in a bathroom. A proposed policy to accommodate transgender students by letting them use whichever bathroom they wish was the topic of heated debate at the meeting. Parents had raised concerns that letting boys who identify as girls use the girls’ restrooms would endanger the safety of their children.
School board member Beth Barts asked the superintendent if there were sexual assaults in restrooms occurring regularly.
“The predator transgender student or person simply does not exist,” Ziegler answered at that meeting. “We don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”
But as the Daily Wire first reported, just three weeks prior a freshman girl said she was sexually assaulted by a boy wearing a skirt in the bathroom. According to an attorney for the girl’s father, the suspect has been charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio related to the incident. The same suspect is alleged to have assaulted another girl in a classroom at a different high school earlier this month.
The May 28 victim’s father, who was in attendance at the school board meeting, grew visibly angry after the school board would not acknowledge his daughter’s alleged assault and was arrested for disorderly conduct.
Last week, Ziegler apologized for making a “misleading” remark, claiming that he thought the question was specifically referring to assaults involving transgender students.
“First, let me say to the families and students involved, my heart aches for you,” Ziegler said in an Oct. 15 statement. “And I am sorry that we failed to provide the safe, welcoming and affirming environment that we aspire to provide. We acknowledge and share your pain and we will continue to offer you support to help your families through this trauma.”
The victim’s family now intends to file a civil lawsuit against the school. Bill Stanley, an attorney representing the family, said in a statement that Ziegler’s apology confirmed that the school administration “failed to provide the safe environment” for the victim.
“As evidenced by subsequent events and revelations, Loudoun Public Schools have been failing the parents who entrusted them to provide a safe environment for their children every day,” Stanley said. “That trust has (been) irrevocably broken by Loudoun County Public Schools’ actions and inactions.”
A sheriff’s office in Arizona has released a video of an impressive incident at a convenience store, in which a Marine veteran appeared in the right place at the right time, coolly taking down suspected gun-wielding criminals.
The short but dramatic, movie-like footage from surveillance cameras at a gas station in Yuma County captured a lone customer taking matters into his own hands when masked men with a handgun entered the store at around 4am.
In the clip, posted on Facebook by the local sheriff’s office on Wednesday, a bearded man in a basketball cap, plastic bag in hand, is seen standing with his back to the front door. Then, suspected robbers with their faces covered enter the scene, one of them pointing a handgun towards the checkout counter, with the muzzle just inches from the customer.
The man reacts instantly, disarming the suspect with his free hand in a matter of seconds, before knocking him to the ground. The other suspected criminals, some of whom didn’t even have time to enter through the door, flee. The disarmed man was detained by the customer until law enforcement arrived. He was then booked into a justice center for a count of armed robbery and aggravated assault.
Deputies identified the rescuer as a US Marine Corps veteran. When “asked how he was able to take control of the situation, he stated, ’The Marine Corps taught me not to [mess] around,’” the sheriff’s office shared.
Impressed people online praised the man for his “never ending service,” with many calling him a “true hero.” Commenters said he deserved an award, or unlimited free gas at the least.
