>>18047134 (lb)
>>18047116 (lb)
ok.
but no one makes burial mounds for the remains of their food. And many ancient peoples used those bones for tools and other applications.
> Henry Winkler
"Strong Kids, Safe Kids" PSA 1984
Fonzie tells parents how to protect their children, and offers ways for children to recognize and avoid dangerous situations.
Winkler & John Ritter…
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307516/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
https://outsider.com/entertainment/happy-days-tom-hanks-made-special-appearance-black-belt-karate-expert/
Guess who played Heather Pfister's mom's boyfriend on Happy Days? Tom Hanks.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/modeling-gone-bad
Modeling Gone Bad.
And here we go again, more evidence of harms done.
https://mobile.twitter.com/healthbyjames/status/1608924951511461888
James Cintolo, RN FN CPT
@healthbyjames
🧵/Zogby Survey Revealed 44% Experienced Thrombosis & 19% Had Heart Attacks After COVID Vaccination
➡️5% received a new medical diagnoses within 1 week to 7 months after at least 1 dose
➡️44% experienced thrombosis
➡️19% had heart attacks
➡️18% suffered liver damage
https://mobile.twitter.com/healthbyjames/status/1608920249373716481
James Cintolo, RN FN CPT
@healthbyjames
BREAKING — Public health experts to join forces with farmers and influence how they grow food.
In the name of “food insecurity”, a commission will likely convene which seeks to oversee and direct food production/distribution.
What could go wrong?
https://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02576-4/fulltext
Fauci Leaves a Broken Agency for His Successor | Opinion
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-leaves-broken-agency-his-successor-opinion-1770215
After 54 years at the NIH, tomorrow marks Dr. Anthony Fauci's last day in office as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). While many were angered by his changing and conflicting recommendations, I am not. They are mere symptoms of a much larger and deeper problem. Dr. Fauci's agency failed to promptly fund key research during the pandemic. That research would have abruptly ended many of the COVID controversies that divided our country.
In a study of NIH funding published in The BMJ, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I found that in the first year of the pandemic, it took the NIH an average of five months to give money to researchers after they were awarded a COVID grant. This should be unacceptable during a health emergency.
Consider the question of how COVID spread—was it airborne or spread on surfaces? (Remember all those people wiping down their groceries?) It lingered as an open question without good research for months, as Fauci spent hundreds of hours on television opining on the matter. Finally, on August 17, 2021—a year and a half after COVID lockdowns began—Dr. Fauci's agency released results of a study showing the disease was airborne. Thanks for that. The announcement on the NIAID website, titled "NIH Hamster Study Evaluates Airborne and Fomite Transmission of SARS-CoV-2" came 18 months too late.
Imagine if, in February 2020, Dr. Fauci had marshaled his $6 billion budget, vast laboratory facilities, and teams of experts to conduct a definitive lab experiment to establish that COVID was airborne. On this question and many others throughout the pandemic, our problem was not that the science changed—it's that it wasn't done.
Newsweek Newsletter sign-up >
NIH funding for COVID research was also erratic. The NIH spent almost $1.2 billion on long COVID research, but virtually nothing on masks, natural immunity, COVID in children, or vaccine complications. Ironically, the NIH spent more than twice as much on aging research as it did on COVID research in the first year of the pandemic, according to my team's analysis. I'm all for aging research, but not when a novel virus is killing thousands of Americans per day.
A randomized controlled trial is the gold-standard method to establish a drug's effectiveness. Yet remarkably, for COVID, we still don't have randomized trials for so many drug recommendations, including the new bivalent vaccine, COVID vaccine boosters in young people, the optimal vaccine dosing interval, and even the antiviral drug Paxlovid in vaccinated people. More disturbing, our country has been deeply divided for years about whether to mask children. The partisan arguing and harm to children could have been avoided if a proper study settled the science early.
P1
Because the NIH moved at glacial speed, most of our COVID knowledge came from overseas. The critical discovery that steroids reduce COVID mortality by one-third came only after European researchers did a randomized trial that Fauci's agency should have commissioned quickly. Similarly, a conclusive study showing that Vitamin D reduces COVID mortality, published last month, arrived two years too late.
Newsweek subscription offers >
The official government job description for Dr. Fauci's role states that the director must "respond rapidly to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases." Dr. Fauci didn't do that during the coronavirus pandemic. In order for the U.S. to respond better to the next pandemic, we will need our nation's infectious diseases research agency, and its top doctor, to act with a sense of urgency.
The NIH's disheveled COVID response is a window into a bureaucracy that has underperformed for decades. With obvious biases and blind spots, our nation's top research institution has long hindered research progress in important topics, from food as medicine to the role of general body inflammation in disease. The "H" in "NIH" stands for health, and health means much more than laboratory medicine. That means it should fund proper studies on environmental exposures that cause cancer, not just chemotherapies to treat it. The NIH's legacy system of having the oldest scientists in the room determine what research is worthy of investigation crowds out the study of fresh new ideas.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the most widely circulated medical journal, recently reported its most-discussed articles of 2022. The top three articles were on the discovery of mRNA vaccine particles in breast milk, myocarditis after COVID vaccination, and a study I led at Johns Hopkins on the durability of natural immunity. None of the three were funded by the NIH—all were topics downplayed by Dr. Fauci and other public health officials.
On a personal level, many infectious disease doctors and academic physicians have told me privately they were afraid to disagree with Dr. Fauci because their entire career is dependent on NIH funding. We are now learning—through the Twitter files—that U.S. health agencies pushed for the censorship of opposing opinions from top scientists at top institutions. Health officials could have spent that time and energy conducting much-needed scientifically sound research.
If Dr. Fauci wants to forever improve the agency he is now departing, he should speak out against medical censorship and publicly call for the immediate discontinuation of a White House internal policy that the thousands of doctors and scientists at the NIH, FDA, and CDC are not allowed to speak to the media. Medical discussion should not be a privilege hoarded by a select few agency leaders.
Dr. Fauci made helpful contributions during the pandemic, urging people to take COVID seriously and encouraging high-risk Americans to get vaccinated. But at a desperate time when the country needed the NIAID to work, it didn't. Fauci's agency failed to pivot its mammoth research infrastructure to give doctors and policymakers the medical evidence they needed at a critical time. In the absence of evidence, dogma ruled the day. The result has been the most politicized pandemic in history and a loss of public trust. Rebuilding that trust and a broken agency will be the charge of Dr. Fauci's successor.
Dr. Marty Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and author of The Price We Pay.
2 of 2
Why Spending Time With Kids Might Actually Help Protect You From COVID
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/spending-time-with-kids-might-help-protect-adults-from-covid.html
Figuring out which pandemic safety measures were prudent and which were misguided is the monumental project left to scientists, ethicists, public-health experts, and others now that (roughly) normal life has resumed. Among the most important but controversial subjects for reassessment are the COVID-19 interventions that affected children, including their ability to go to school or otherwise participate in basic social activities. In large portions of the United States, schools were closed for many months or even more than a year, activities for young people were broadly canceled, and tens of millions of American children were kept inside their homes and away from peers, teachers, relatives, and friends. While the persistent and considerable consequences of those policies are still coming to light, the main justification for them was that exposure to children increased COVID risk for adults.
A pair of new findings casts serious doubt on that logic. The two studies were published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences — one in August and one last month — and together they achieved something rare: They offered dramatic and important new information suggesting a correction to a commonly held narrative about children as dangerous viral vectors during the pandemic. But their results, according to multiple experts interviewed for this article, were also entirely expected.
The August paper found that “exposure to young children was strongly associated with less severe COVID-19 illness.” In an analysis of the records of more than 3 million adults in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system, the authors found that “those without identifiable household exposure to children based on health insurance enrollment had a 27% higher rate of COVID-19 hospitalization and a 49% higher rate of COVID-19 hospitalization requiring ICU admission than those with young children.” (In comparing adults with and without exposure to young children, the analysis matched each group for known COVID risk factors such as age, hypertension, diabetes, and BMI.) The study’s researchers, from Kaiser, Stanford University, and Columbia University, said their findings suggest that cross-immunity from common coronaviruses — which sometimes cause the colds and sniffles that children tend to carry — may play a role in protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.
The study published in November, by researchers from Harvard Medical School, Boston University School of Medicine, and the Veterans Administration, offered biological evidence for the Kaiser study’s epidemiological finding. The researchers found that, during the first year of the pandemic, VA patients who had tested positive for some of the common-cold coronaviruses had an 80 to 90 percent reduction in likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In other words, at least for a limited time, getting the common cold appeared to help some people’s immune system protect against COVID.
These two studies — one relying on laboratory data, the other on observational data — complement each other so compellingly that the researchers behind the November study cite the August paper as the inspiration for theirs. Taken together, the findings suggest that social distancing and isolation at a population level, particularly from young children, may have counterintuitively put some people at greater risk of COVID infection or severe disease once they resumed normal contact. (Several of the experts I spoke with noted that this doesn’t mean social distancing wasn’t beneficial for those at high risk of bad outcomes who were able to remain uninfected until they were vaccinated.)
Francois Balloux, director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, whose work focuses on the epidemiology of infectious diseases, said cross-protection — that is, exposure to the common-cold coronaviruses triggering greater immune protection against COVID — had long been the subject of quiet speculation by experts. “This hypothesis was aired since the beginning of the pandemic but was viewed as dangerous,” he said. “People avoided talking about this in polite circles.”
p1
But the public discussion now seems to be happening. For instance, a recent essay in the New York Times on the relative absence then reemergence of certain viruses, co-authored by a virologist and an infectious-diseases epidemiologist, noted the possible effects of social distancing as well as cross-reactivity (infection from one virus conferring an immune-system benefit against other viruses) in this process.
The VA study adds intriguing new data to this conversation. There are four endemic coronaviruses that can cause the common cold. The VA researchers found that people who had tested positive within the past year for two them — either 229E or OC43 — had a significantly lower rate of COVID than patients who had not tested positive for either of these coronaviruses.
Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious-diseases specialist at Stanford University, said the VA study had some significant limitations, but its findings fit with the existing literature, which indicates “there’s good reason to believe exposure to human coronavirus can lead to some degree of cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2.”
The evidence of cross-protection should cause people to question some commonly held assumptions that governed pandemic safety measures. Balloux, who is a co-author on a study published last year in the journal Nature exploring how exposure to endemic coronaviruses might help T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection, said the VA paper was just the latest small addition to the literature on the broader topic. And overall, Balloux said, it supports the idea that, at a population level, teachers or other professionals with exposure to young children were not at greater risk, as was the conventional wisdom during the pandemic, which drove policy decisions about shuttering schools and children’s activities.
This protective concept exists beyond the endemic coronaviruses. Although Scott did not want to apply this lesson to any policy decisions around mitigations, he said, “the infectious diseases that kids often spread are usually benign and can provide adults with certain immunological protection that they might not otherwise think about.”
To whatever extent school closures or social distancing from children reduce transmission, there may be a downside to those aggressive mitigations, said Dr. Paul Monach, one of the VA study’s authors. “It’s been proposed that the current surge of RSV may in part be because our population didn’t get it for two years,” he said. “It’s plausible that we can overprotect ourselves from viruses.” Instead, “getting a mini- or even micro-booster periodically simply by going about your life would be very reassuring.” He warned, though, that doing so is tricky and depends on how dangerous the virus is to children and everyone else.
While no one enjoys getting colds, these studies suggest that exposure to young children and their colds may offer a protective benefit against more serious illness. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious-diseases specialist at University of California, San Francisco, said that, in light of the protective benefit of mild coronaviruses, “we need to evaluate unintended consequences” of preventing that exposure.
2 of 2
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/missing-scientology-leader-david-miscavige-nowhere-to-be-found-as-federal-prosecutors-search-to-serve-him-child-trafficking-lawsuit/ar-AA15ODxH
MISSING: Scientology Leader David Miscavige 'Nowhere To Be Found' As Federal Prosecutors Search To Serve Him Child Trafficking Lawsuit
Scientology leader David Miscavige is apparently “nowhere to be found” as prosecutors search to serve the controversial figure with a federal child trafficking lawsuit, RadarOnline.com has learned.
Federal authorities have reportedly attempted to serve the mysterious 62-year-old Scientology leader 27 separate times over four months in Los Angeles, California and Clearwater, Florida.
According to Daily Mail, security guards on duty at the California and Florida Scientology properties were “clueless” when lawyers arrived in search of Miscavige.
The three plaintiffs in the lawsuit – Gawain and Laura Baxter and Valeska Paris – have also since hired a private investigator in an attempt to track down the evasive church leader.
Although Miscavige does not have a recorded permanent address, his last known address was the church’s international headquarters in Los Angeles.
In court filings connected to the federal child trafficking lawsuit against him, two former Scientology members said Miscavige lives in a gated church community called Hacienda Gardens just outside of Clearwater.
“Miscavige cannot be permitted to continue his gamesmanship,” said Neil Glazer, a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs in the case. Glazer also said Miscavige is taking part in an “intentional concealment of his location and evasion of service.”
The Baxters and Paris filed the lawsuit against the church leader earlier this year and claim they were forced to work on Scientology boats after signing a one-billion-year contract in exchange for no money.
Paris also claims she was a victim of sexual assault by church members while still a minor and that she was locked inside an engine room when she was 17 as punishment for her mother leaving Scientology.
A Scientology spokesperson has since slammed the allegations against Miscavige and the church, calling the accusations “ridiculous” and the federal lawsuit “a scam.”
“The allegations are both scurrilous and ridiculous and the lawsuit is both a sham and a scam,” the spokesperson said. “Valeska Paris already wasted the time of law enforcement when she made these fraudulent claims years ago.”
“It is public record they closed her file stating: ‘There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence provided to support the allegations.’”
Miscavige is due in court on January 20, but the charges remain pending until the church leader can properly and officially be served with the summons.
California will allow non US citizens to be police officers in January 2023
A new state law championed by Police Chief Joe Farrow will allow anyone who is legally authorized to work in the United States to become a peace officer in California, regardless of citizenship status, starting Jan. 1.
Previously, police officers had to be either U.S. citizens or permanent residents in the process of applying for citizenship.
“People who are in this country with a federal right to work — regardless of how they got here — they can do any job. They can be attorneys, firefighters, join the military, but they can’t be police officers in California,” Farrow said. “Why hold people back? This was the question that deserved some debate.”
Farrow became aware of the issue after joining UC Davis in 2018. As part of efforts to increase diversity, the UC Davis police department recruits new officers from graduating seniors in its cadet academy.
“I noticed kids who were really distinguishing themselves in our academy, but they weren’t eligible to be peace officers,” Farrow said. With support from UC President Michael Drake and Chancellor Gary S. May, Farrow began working toward a bill.
Applicants ready
Guided by state Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Senate Bill 960 easily passed every hearing and vote, and was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom Sept. 29.
“All it says is that to become a peace officer in California, you need to have a legal right to work here,” Farrow said. “All the background checks, all the checks and balances remain the same.”
Farrow said he already has applicants in line for jobs as UC Davis police officers and hopes to make at least one hire in the new year. It’s part of the department’s goal of becoming more diverse and reflective of the community.
“We need to bring in people from marginalized groups and allow them to fulfil their dreams,” Farrow said. “This bill reminds us that universities are a place where people learn and effect change. Passage of SB 960 is a great example of people identifying an issue, having a public debate resulting in a change in the law that positively effects members of our community.”
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/state-law-expands-eligibility-peace-officers
Russia will enact martial law, close borders for military-aged men and start a new wave of mobilisation In early January
https://twitter.com/francisjfarrell/status/1608951856021278721
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1715440/russia-martial-law-mobilisation-ukraine-latest-news-oleksii-reznikov-ont
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-live-ukraine-claims-putin-considering-closing-russian-border-kyiv-hit-by-missile-strikes/ar-AA15PQw0
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3644076-reznikov-addresses-russians-week-left-before-kremlin-shuts-borders-imposes-martial-law.html
anon is just collecting pieces to the ever-expanding puzzle. If the grid stays up, all will know shortly. Jan 5 is only days away.