1953, President of the United States...
President Eisenhower - Chance for Peace - Full 1953 Speech
how many chances do we get?
Saturday, November 26, 2022
Friday, March 11, 2022
For Profit
The link below leads to an article published by Bloomberg January 18th. We've posted it as well. Everyone should read this if they are vaccinated with the Pfizer covid 19 vaccine. It is background to a report from the FDA published a few days ago.
We've posted more information below the article as well.
Why a Judge Ordered FDA to Release Covid-19 Vaccine Data Pronto
Jan. 18, 2022, 1:00 AM
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Food and Drug Administration asked a federal judge for permission to make the public wait until the year 2096 to disclose all of the data it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
That is not a typo. The FDA wanted court approval to have up to 75 years to publicly disclose this information.
In its attempts to build public support for Covid-19 vaccinations, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency,” and reaffirmed its “commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
With that promise in mind, after the vaccine’s licensure in August 2020, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of highly credentialed scientists submitted a FOIA request to the FDA for the data submitted by Pfizer. The scientists explained that, until all the data is produced, a proper review cannot be conducted because missing even a single data set could throw off any analysis.
In response, the FDA produced nothing. Therefore, in September 2021, the scientists, represented by their attorneys at Siri & Glimstad, sued the FDA demanding it produce this data by March 2022.
The agency originally estimated it would need to produce 329,000 pages, and asked the court for permission to produce just 500 pages per month, which would have taken 55 years. In its final brief to the Court, the FDA admitted that the total page count was at least 451,000, but still sought permission to produce just 500 pages per month. Meaning that it could have taken 75 years, when most Americans alive today would be dead, to fully publicly disclose this information.
On Jan. 6, a federal court in the Northern District of Texas ordered the expedited release. As of Jan. 12, the FDA hasn’t indicated it intends to appeal.
Scientists Requested Data After FDA Licensing
The FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine on Aug. 23, 2021, just 108 days after Pfizer started producing the records to the agency. During that period, the FDA asserts it conducted an intense, robust, and thorough analysis of those documents to assure the public that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective.
Yet, when asked to share those documents with the public, the FDA claimed it needed over 20,000 days. The FDA’s production schedule clashed with its promise of transparency.
The purpose of FOIA is government transparency. When it comes to the Pfizer vaccine, the need for transparency is unprecedented. A majority of Americans are now mandated to receive a Covid-19 vaccine under penalty of losing a job, or worse.
This has never been done before. Typically adult vaccine mandates have been limited; even the seminal U.S. Supreme Court vaccine mandate decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, only involved a state-imposed $5 penalty, and school vaccine mandates have historically had liberal religious or personal belief exemption policies.
Even more problematic is that Americans, if injured, cannot sue Pfizer. There is virtually no other product where a consumer is prohibited from suing the company that manufactures, markets, and profits from the product.
Decoupling a company’s profit interest from its interest in safety creates a moral hazard and departs from centuries of product liability doctrine. Thus, it is extraordinary that Americans must take this product under penalty of expulsion from work, school, the military and civil life, but they cannot sue Pfizer for any resulting injuries.
The federal government created this unprecedented situation. It granted the immunity, licensed the product, and aggressively sought mandates. This situation therefore warrants unprecedented transparency.
As then-presidential candidate Joe Biden told the American people, “You’ve got to make all of it [the vaccine data] available to other experts across the nation so they can look and see.” He repeated that need to share the data numerous times. So did senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle.
FDA Claimed It Can’t Comply, Judge Orders Compliance
The FDA apparently disagreed. During a hearing on Dec. 14, 2021, its counsel steadfastly maintained that the court should not require the agency to produce more than 500 pages per month, harping on the FDA’s purported limited resources, its need to redact personal information, and duty to protect Pfizer’s trade secret interests, all the while ignoring the interests of the American people.
The FDA’s excuses were incredible. The FDA has more than 18,000 employees and a budget of over $6.5 billion. It would be laughable if any multibillion-dollar company came before a court and claimed poverty to escape making a document production, but that was the FDA’s position.
U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman, Northern District of Texas, expressed dismay at the FDA’s proposed rate of production. He found the duration requested by the FDA unreasonable, comparing it to the actions of totalitarian nations. As such, the judge on Jan. 6 ordered the FDA to produce at least 55,000 pages per month.
In his ruling, the judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities. He quoted James Madison as saying a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a “nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
America has some of the greatest institutions of learning the world has ever known. We need the scientific community, both inside and outside the government, to address the serious ongoing issues with the vaccine program, including waning immunity, variants evading vaccines, and that vaccinated individuals can still transmit the virus.
The FDA’s attempt to close the door and lock out independent scientists from the data necessary to address these issues was irresponsible.
Transparent, Independent Review Is Needed
The failure of the government’s closed-door approach is exemplified by the fact that the FDA did not send a representative to the court hearing because, as the government attorney explained, the FDA’s Covid-19 protocols would not permit it.
Meaning, despite a reported vaccination rate of over 96% across federal health agencies back in November 2021, and the FDA’s claim that the vaccines are “effective,” Covid-19 is still disrupting everyday life. This brings into stark focus the need to open the door and involve independent scientists.
As Pittman recognized, America needs transparency and independent scientists to review this data—not in 75 years, but now.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
Author Information
Aaron Siri is the managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP, and has extensive experience in a wide range of complex civil litigation matters, with a focus on civil rights involving mandated medical procedures, class actions, and high-stakes disputes. Twitter @aaronsirisg.
Pfizer made $40,000,000,000 extra last year.
Regards,
Aki and Scott
https://www.caribooblades.com
Saturday, January 8, 2022
For What it's Worth
For the New Year.
1. YOU CAN ONLY WORK FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU LIKE
2. IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE NEVER HAVE A JOB
3. SOME PEOPLE ARE TOXIC AVOID THEM.
4. PROFESSIONALISM IS NOT ENOUGH (or THE GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT)
5. LESS IS NOT NECESSARILY MORE
6. STYLE IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED
7. HOW YOU LIVE CHANGES YOUR BRAIN
8. DOUBT IS
BETTER THAN CERTAINTY
9. IT DOESN'T MATTER
10. TELL THE TRUTH
Milton Glaser
Regards,
Aki and Scott
Saturday, December 25, 2021
Living with Solar Power for 26 Years, What We Have Learned
It almost feels like sun worship. Watching our garden grow, working,
feeding our electricity habit and staying healthy by the sun. That is
the point. The sun.
We live and work in an isolated spot in the interior of British Columbia. We started with two 85 watt panels and two golf cart batteries 25 years ago. Powered our 12 volt tv and a light. Now we run 3 small, independant solar arrays.
The smallest is made up of a 75 watt panel fixed to our roof, facing south connected to a charge controller. The controller is connected to one 12 volt deep cycle battery. It powers a 12 volt light in the pantry, a 12 volt water pump from our well, a cd, tape player and radio.
 |
| 500 watts of solar panel |
Sun trackers can provide a 45% increase in power.
We built this one 20 years ago. It has been modified since then to hold 4 panels vertically.
We live and work here. The trackers are manual. We turn them directly on the sun three or four times a day in the summer. Spring and fall, 2 or 3 times. In the winter they are static. Working with the sun. On dark winter days we run a 3000 watt inverter generator for a few hours, assuring everything stays rock hard in the freezer.
Besides lights, computers and the odd kitchen appliance, we power our shop. Our most demanding machine is the band saw with a 3/4 horse power motor.
What we have learned to get the most from your solar panels is:
charging batteries and relying on that stored power is not the way to go. Battery technology is inefficient. For us stored power is just enough for lights and computers when there is no sun. When the sun is out we'll work. From March until October we have unlimited power for our needs. We work full time with smaller machines (10 amps and less) when the sun is out. The bigger machines we use intermittently and because of our lighter wiring we run one 3/4 horse machine at a time.When the batteries are charged and there is a 60% sun day the process is a lot more efficient. Solar energy flows through the panels. The batteries act like a conduit. Energy the inefficient batteries will not accept on a full sun day is the energy we can use up.
After working in the shop, at the end of a day the batteries have as much charge as they had at the beginning of the day. If the day involved lots of heavy use, like using the table saw ripping or milling apple wood with the band saw etc, all over 15 amps, then we would alternate system. Keeping the batteries charged.
 |
| Our shops |
This power set up could be doubled, tripled, quadrupled... You would just need more. Heavier wiring, more wattage (panels), larger capacity controllers etc....
We help charge the batteries with a generator in the low sun months from November until the middle of February. We need to use a generator for machine power in the winter and on heavy load days in the early spring and fall. We slow our work right down in the winter. It works out.
Having two main systems that are interchangeable has proven to be a great asset in the low sun months. As one system is being used and discharges the other is charging.
4.6 billion years old. The sun will start a tranformation into a red dwarf in 5 billion years. Swallowing the earth, Mars...
Consider, the sun provides enough power in one hour than the planet of people use in one year.
We are fortunate to live and work with the sun. A few panels and batteries have worked for us. What we've paid for our 1000 watt systems, today, you could buy 6 or 7 times as much power. A system of 5 or 6 thousand watts would pay for itself in 2 or 3 years if not sooner.
It almost feels like sun worship. Watching our garden grow, working, feeding our electricity habit and staying healthy by the sun. That is the point. The sun.
Regards,
Aki and Scott
Thursday, December 9, 2021
Covid Insane, The changing Landscape
There are questions about the way we've been dealing with covid 19.
Biologist Bret Weinstein Phd interviews a cardiologist/ immunologist, Dr Peter McCollough.
Is it dangerous and immoral to vaccinate healthy children? If there is any risk of death from the vaccine, why are we giving it to healthy children ?
Regards,
Aki and Scott
Wednesday, June 2, 2021
MONSTER, A RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL EXPERIENCE
This is a recording of Dennis Saddleman's poem.
We post this in the wake of another residential school's graveyard of buried indigenous children found in Kamloops, BC. It is estimated that upwards of 15,000 to 25,000 children are in unmarked graves around residential schools in Canada.
Imagine the government comes with police. They take your child..children. It's the last time you ever see them.
Regards,
Aki and Scott
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Some Truth About Covid-19
The CDC has finally said what scientists have been screaming for months: The coronavirus is overwhelmingly spread through the air, not via surfaces.
Last week, the CDC acknowledged what many of us have been saying for almost nine months about cleaning surfaces to prevent transmission by touch of the coronavirus: It’s pure hygiene theater.
“Based on available epidemiological data and studies of environmental transmission factors,” the CDC concluded, “surface transmission is not the main route by which SARS-CoV-2 spreads, and the risk is considered to be low.” In other words: You can put away the bleach, cancel your recurring Amazon subscription for disinfectant wipes, and stop punishing every square inch of classroom floor, restaurant table, and train seat with high-tech antimicrobial blasts. COVID-19 is airborne: It spreads through tiny aerosolized droplets that linger in the air in unventilated spaces. Touching stuff just doesn’t carry much risk, and more people should say so, very loudly.
Like many, I spent the early months of the pandemic dunking my apples and carrots in soap. That was before I read a persuasive essay in the medical journal The Lancet by Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School: “Exaggerated Risk of Transmission of COVID-19 by Fomites.” (In medical jargon, fomites are objects and surfaces that can transmit an infectious pathogen.) This opinion ran contrary to the conventional wisdom of the broader scientific community, and Goldman told me that several journals rejected his essay. But he was not alone in his quest. Writers such as my colleague Zeynep Tufekci and researchers such as Jose-Luis Jimenez, an aerosol scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, were also outspoken in their insistence that we needed to focus on ventilation rather than surfaces, windows rather than Windex. They were rebuffed, not only by loudmouths on Twitter and on TV, but by other scientists who clung stubbornly to an outdated view of viral spread.
These days, Goldman is extending his crusade against fomite fear from COVID-19 to other diseases. The old story is that if you make contact with a surface that a sick person touched, and then you touch your eyes or lips, you’ll infect yourself. While Goldman acknowledges that many diseases, especially bacterial diseases, spread easily from surfaces, he now suspects that most respiratory viruses spread primarily through the air, like SARS-CoV-2 does.
“For most respiratory viruses, the evidence for fomite transmission looks pretty weak,” Goldman said. “With the exception of RSV [respiratory syncytial virus], there are few other respiratory viruses where fomite transmission has been conclusively shown.” For example, rhinovirus, one of the most common viruses in the world and the predominant cause of the common cold, is probably overwhelmingly spread via aerosols. The same may be true of influenza. Many experiments that suggest surface transmission of respiratory viruses stack the deck by studying unrealistically large amounts of virus using unrealistically ideal (cold, dry, and dark) conditions for their survival. Based on our experience with SARS-CoV-2, these may not be trustworthy studies.
Unlike the coronavirus, hygiene theater is very much alive on surfaces across America. Transit authorities are still taking subway cars offline to power-scrub their walls. Baseball parks are banning cash to protect fans from fiat germs. Schools throughout the country still require deep cleanings that sometimes shut down classes for hours or days. The Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 posters still urge people to “clean high-touch surfaces frequently,” with no mention of ventilation, air filters, or keeping windows open. Target is still running ads on Hulu bragging about how it calls in workers at 6 a.m. to mop and scrub for several hours, for the comfort of its germophobic customers.
Read: The difference between feeling safe and being safe
Alas, not even my own employer is immune to the scourge of hygiene theater. In an update on our back-to-office policies yesterday, The Atlantic instituted a “clean desk” protocol starting this summer that will require “daily neatening and sanitation of workspaces.” Anybody who works in journalism, or has ever seen a movie about journalism, knows that journalists take to daily neatening the way lions take to vegetarianism. Beyond being unnecessary, workplace-sanitation rules also carry the risk of enforcing an awkward parent-teen relationship between bosses and employees. In this business, “clean up this paragraph” is hard enough on one’s self-esteem; “... and clean your filthy desk while you’re at it” is not the sort of workplace banter that eases one’s psychological transition back to the office.
Whenever I’ve written about hygiene theater, some people have responded with the same objection: “Hey, what’s the matter with washing our hands?” That’s an easy one: Absolutely nothing. “Pandemic or no pandemic, you should wash your hands, especially after you prepare food, go to the bathroom,” or touch something yucky, Goldman said.
But hygiene theater carries with it an immense opportunity cost. Too many institutions spend scarce funds or sacrifice scarce resources to do microbial battle against fomites that don’t pose a real threat. This is especially true of cash-strapped urban-transit authorities and school districts that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on soap technology rather than their central task of transporting and teaching people.
Hygiene theater also muddles the public-health message. If you tell people, “This disease is on surfaces, on your clothes, on your hands, on your face, and also in the air,” they will react in a scattered and scared way. But if you tell people the truth—this virus doesn’t do very well on surfaces, so you should focus on ventilation—they can protect themselves against what matters.
At the ideas level, the jealous protection of hygiene theater is an example of a larger American crisis. “When the CDC doesn’t update its fomite language for months while scientists are screaming about aerosolized spread, it just seems like a case of the precautionary principle taking over,” Goldman said. In his 2011 book, The Beginning of Infinity, the physicist David Deutsch defined the precautionary principle as a form of pessimism that “seeks to ward off disaster by avoiding everything not known to be safe.” The opposite of the precautionary principle is something like epistemic optimism: We don’t know enough, and we should always try to learn more.
That point might sound airy and theoretical, but it makes direct contact with America’s worst pandemic failures. Too many U.S. institutions throughout the pandemic have shown little interest in the act of learning while doing. They etched the conventional wisdoms of March 2020 into stone and clutched their stone-tablet commandments in the face of any evidence that would disprove them. Liberal readers might readily point to Republican governors who rejected masks and indoor restrictions even as their states faced outbreaks. But the criticism also applies to deep-blue areas. Los Angeles, for instance, closed its playgrounds and prohibited friends from going on beach walks, long after researchers knew that the coronavirus didn’t really spread outdoors. In the pandemic and beyond, this might be the fundamental crisis of American institutions: They specialize in the performance of bureaucratic competence rather than the act of actually being competent.
The CDC’s announcement should be curtains for theatrical deep cleanings. But until companies, transit authorities, retailers, and magazines embrace the value of scientific discovery and the joy of learning new things, the show, and the soap, will go on.
Derek Thompson is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, technology, and the media. He is the author of Hit Makers and the host of the podcast Crazy/Genius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
