View allAll Photos Tagged FactCheck
*Working Towards a Better World
New York Times
Senate Health Bill Reels as C.B.O. Predicts 22 Million More Uninsured
Fact Check
www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000005181436/health-...
Thank you for your kind visit. Have a wonderful and beautiful day! ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
A rusty garden statute of a tin man and his cooking. Of course tin man, cooker and other names have been hurled at members of our society who have more extreme views and behaviours. These were on display during the Pandemic but in reality were always there, perhaps being more easily ignored. The views and behaviours have caused problems for all sorts of governmental organisations such as police, libraries, council parking officers, law courts. Freedom they cry, less often responsibility or some semblance of truth. The current world affairs seem likely to stoke the "outlier" views in a range of places with X, Meta and other enormous social networking companies walking away from content moderation and fact checking. We shall see whether this backfires on these large, unregulated tech companies or whether we are going to be further influenced by lies, disinformation and scurrilous rumours. One of the reasons I so dislike disinformation is that it impacts negatively on the rights and responsibilities of the majority and minorities in our society. Rant over - www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jan/08/australia-...
I researched as well as I could. Update me if I am wrong. 500 reported corona virus cases. This does not count the numbers on the cruise ship. In that 500, there are 20 reported fatalities. That is 4%. This is math.
Quality prints, greeting cards and many useful products can be purchased at >> kaye-menner.pixels.com/featured/sun-during-australian-fir...
An image of the sun setting that I captured on 4 December 2019 from the front of my house in the north of Sydney during the catastrophic bushfires in Australia in December 2019 and January 2020.
It is only in the past day or so that we have seen a partially normal sun in the sky. Of course, this depends upon the wind direction and where you live.
Some of the fires came close to our house, but we were not effected thank goodness. But very poor air quality with smoke particles has left us with very smokey red skies for a month or more now with the sun most days with an eerie red hue.
The weather has cooled down here today with supposedly similar cooler conditions for the next few days which will give our firefighters a better chance. We were having temperatures up to 45 degrees C (113F) in north western Sydney where I am, and even up to 48.9 degrees C (around 120F) further west.
Sydney, New South Wales and other states have been in severe drought, so until we get some decent rain, these fires may keep on going if we get more very hot temperatures. We have rather severe water restrictions in force at present.
One site just for further info - although there is much news of the Australian Bushfires:
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/22/australia-...
Dokumente enthüllen, dass die Pfizer-Spritze eine Lawine von Fehlgeburten und Totgeburten auslöste
(uncutnews.ch/, Dezember 24, 2021)
Zu den ersten Berichten, die Pfizer aushändigte, gehörte eine „Kumulative Analyse der Berichte über unerwünschte Ereignisse nach der Zulassung“, in der Ereignisse beschrieben wurden, die Pfizer bis Februar 2021 gemeldet wurden.
Netflix-Reality-TV-Star Maya Vander erzählte ihren Fans letzte Woche von ihrer verheerenden Trauer, nachdem sie am 9. Dezember in der 38. Schwangerschaftswoche eine Totgeburt erlitten hatte.
„Gestern war der härteste Tag meines Lebens“, postete Vander, 39, auf Instagram, mit einem Bild von neuer Babykleidung in einer Erinnerungsbox, die sie anstelle ihres kleinen Jungen aus dem Krankenhaus mit nach Hause nahm. „Ich habe immer davon gehört, aber ich hätte nie gedacht, dass ich Teil der Statistik sein würde.“
Vander, eine Immobilienmaklerin aus Beverly Hills, die in der Show „Selling Sunset“ mitspielt, hatte im November ein Foto von sich bei einem Schwangerschaftsshooting gepostet und sah dabei kerngesund aus. Vander, die vom US-Magazin als „vollständig geimpft“ beschrieben wird, hat zwei weitere Kinder: Aiden, zwei Jahre alt, und Tochter Elle, einjährig.
Nach ihrem Verlust schrieb sie im Insider-Magazin, dass sie ein paar Tage, bevor sie erfuhr, dass ihr Baby gestorben war, weniger Bewegungen des Babys gespürt hatte und dass ihr Mann und ihre beiden Kinder COVID-positiv waren, obwohl sie selbst negativ getestet worden war. Sie sagte, das Baby, das „perfekt“ war und knapp 4 Kilogramm wog, würde autopsiert werden.
Es gab eine Reihe von mitfühlenden Berichten über Vanders Verlust, aber kein einziger Artikel wagte es, brennende Fragen zu stellen: Hatten die COVID-Impfungen während ihrer Schwangerschaft etwas mit dem Tod des Babys zu tun? Oder hatte COVID etwas damit zu tun, und die COVID-Spritzen haben versagt?
Daten, die Pfizer nicht sehen wollte
Als eine Gruppe namens Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (Öffentliche Gesundheit und medizinische Fachkräfte für Transparenz) Pfizer aufforderte, die Rohdaten aus den COVID-Impfstoffversuchen und der Überwachung nach dem Inverkehrbringen, die für die Lizenzierung der Injektion verwendet wurden, mitzuteilen, verweigerte der Pharmariese zusammen mit der Food and Drug Administration (FDA) die Einsicht in die Anfragen nach dem Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Die FDA (die der öffentlichen Gesundheit dienen und sie schützen soll) hat sogar Anwälte des Justizministeriums angeheuert und ist vor Gericht gegangen, um den Pharmariesen davor zu bewahren, seine Daten offenlegen zu müssen – 55 Jahre lang. Das ist richtig. Die FDA und Pfizer wollten nicht, dass irgendjemand die Zahlen hinter ihrem COVID-Impfstoff bis 2076 zu sehen bekommt.
Glücklicherweise entschied ein Richter, dass die FDA und Pfizer ihre FOIA-Anfragen beantworten müssen. Zu den ersten Berichten, die Pfizer aushändigte, gehörte eine „Kumulative Analyse von Berichten über unerwünschte Ereignisse nach der Zulassung“, in der Ereignisse beschrieben werden, die Pfizer bis Februar 2021 gemeldet wurden. Daraus geht hervor, dass der Pharmakonzern innerhalb von drei Monaten nach der Einführung der COVID-Spritze mehr als 150.000 Berichte über schwerwiegende unerwünschte Ereignisse erhalten hat. Bei den meisten dieser Frauen dürfte es sich um Beschäftigte im Gesundheitswesen gehandelt haben, da die ersten Impfungen an diese Personengruppe gingen. Da die klinischen Studien, die der Einführung vorausgingen, schwangere Frauen ausschlossen, wären dies die ersten schwangeren und stillenden Frauen gewesen, die die Impfstoffe erhalten haben.
Aus Tabelle 6 geht hervor, dass von 270 „einzigartigen Schwangerschaften“, die dem Impfstoff ausgesetzt waren, „für 238 Schwangerschaften kein Ergebnis angegeben wurde“.
Damit verbleiben 32 Schwangerschaften mit bekannten Ergebnissen.
Im Bericht von Pfizer heißt es, dass es 23 Spontanaborte (Fehlgeburten), zwei Frühgeburten mit Neugeborenentod, zwei Spontanaborte mit intrauterinem Tod, ein Spontanabort mit Neugeborenentod und eine Schwangerschaft mit „normalem Ausgang“ gab. Das bedeutet, dass von 32 Schwangerschaften mit bekanntem Ausgang 28 mit dem Tod des Fötus endeten.
In dem Bericht von Pfizer heißt es, dass es fünf Schwangerschaften mit „offenem Ausgang“ gab sowie 238 mit „kein Ausgang angegeben“. Aber 32 minus 28 ergibt vier, nicht fünf.
Aufgrund dieser Verwirrung rief ich bei Pfizer an und schickte Fragen per E-Mail an deren Medienvertreter. Waren 28 von 32 bekannten Schwangerschaftsausgängen in den ersten 10 Wochen, in denen der Impfstoff verfügbar war, tatsächlich tödlich, wie der Bericht nahelegt? Das entspricht einer Schwangerschaftsverlustrate von 87,5 %? Und nur ein Schwangerschaftsausgang war „normal“? Bitte korrigieren Sie mich, wenn ich falsch liege.
Keine Antwort.
Die FDA hätte diese Daten bereits Ende April in Händen gehabt. Vielleicht wollten sie sie deshalb 55 Jahre lang verheimlichen?
Wenn ein neues Medikament oder ein medizinisches Gerät in den Verkehr gebracht wird, obliegt es normalerweise dem Hersteller, zu beweisen, dass unerwartete Ereignisse, die danach auftreten, nicht mit dem Produkt zusammenhängen, und das sollte er auch tun. „Alle Spontanmeldungen haben einen impliziten Kausalzusammenhang gemäß den behördlichen Richtlinien, unabhängig von der Einschätzung des Meldenden“, heißt es in den Richtlinien für die Meldung unerwünschter Ereignisse. Doch Pfizer und die FDA ignorierten Ereignisse mit zeitlichem Zusammenhang und plausibler Ursache für die Schädigung und erklärten den Impfstoff munter als „sicher und wirksam“ für schwangere Frauen.
Sie ließen sogar zu, dass er vorgeschrieben wurde.
Kanadische Berichte über Totgeburten
In Kanada gab es Whistleblower-Berichte, in denen von erhöhten Totgeburtenraten nach COVID-Injektionen die Rede war. Ein pensionierter Arzt in British Columbia, Dr. Mel Bruchet, behauptete im November, dass ihm von Doulas mitgeteilt wurde, dass es im Lion’s Gate Hospital in Vancouver innerhalb von 24 Stunden 13 Totgeburten gegeben habe. Eine Großmutter, deren Enkelkind im Krankenhaus tot geboren wurde, twitterte am 21. November: „Meine Tochter hat vor einem Monat diesen verdammten Giftimpfstoff bekommen, weil sie nicht in ein Restaurant gehen konnte, und die Leute sind ausgeflippt, weil sie nicht geimpft war. Ich möchte die Regierung verklagen.“ Die Nachricht wurde von Twitter gelöscht.
Dr. Daniel Nagase, ein Arzt aus Alberta, der sein Krankenhaus in Alberta verlassen musste, weil er drei COVID-Patienten (die alle lebend aus dem Krankenhaus entlassen wurden) mit Ivermectin behandelt hatte, erzählte einem Reporter, dass er zwischen Januar und Juli über 86 Totgeburten in Waterloo, Ontario, informiert worden war.
„Normalerweise sind es nur fünf oder sechs Totgeburten pro Jahr. Das heißt, eine Totgeburt alle zwei Monate ist die übliche Rate“, sagte er. „Dass es plötzlich 86 Totgeburten in sechs Monaten gibt, ist also höchst ungewöhnlich. Aber die wichtigste Bestätigung, die wir aus dem Bericht aus Waterloo, Ontario, haben, ist, dass alle Mütter der 86 Totgeburten vollständig geimpft waren“.
Unscharfe Faktenüberprüfung
Medien und Krankenhäuser bezeichneten die Behauptungen sofort als Fehlinformationen, aber ihre „Faktenüberprüfung“ widerlegte sie nicht wirklich. Sie legten Daten aus dem „letzten Steuerjahr“ oder von April bis August vor.
„Daten speziell vom Lions Gate Hospital konnten aus Datenschutzgründen nicht veröffentlicht werden“, so Global News. Sie gaben nicht gerade beruhigende Aussagen von Ärzten wie: „Es gibt immer mehr Beweise dafür, dass die Impfung sicher ist“. Die „zunehmenden Beweise“ stammen eindeutig von den schwangeren Frauen und ihren Babys selbst, die an der klinischen Studie beteiligt sind.
Factcheck zitiert die Website der Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), die dies bestätigt und erklärt, dass laut CDC „die Vorteile einer COVID-19-Impfung alle bekannten oder potenziellen Risiken einer Impfung während der Schwangerschaft überwiegen“ (Hervorhebung hinzugefügt). Das ist eine Sprache, mit der Sie sich absichern können. Wir sind nicht verantwortlich, solange wir nicht wissen, dass es ein Problem gibt, oder solange wir nicht sehen, dass ein potenzielles Risiko realisiert wird.
Sie werden auf der Intensivstation sterben
Als der unabhängige Abgeordnete Rick Nicholls in der Legislative von Ontario eine Frage zu Totgeburten stellte, antwortete die Gesundheitsministerin lediglich, dass die CDC und die Food and Drug Administration die Impfungen empfehlen.
„Sie hat nicht einmal richtig geantwortet, sondern nur wiederholt, was all die anderen Marionetten immer sagen: ‚Es ist sicher'“, kommentierte eine Mutter, Chané Neveling. „Das macht mich so wütend. Ich habe gerade erst im Juli mein kleines Mädchen bekommen [und] der Druck, den ich von meinen Ärzten verspürt habe, den [Impfstoff] während der Schwangerschaft zu bekommen, hat mich fast dazu gebracht, gegen meine Moral zu verstoßen, und ich hätte ihn fast bekommen. Der genaue Wortlaut meines Gynäkologen war: „Sie sind dumm, weil Sie sich nicht impfen lassen. Sie werden auf der Intensivstation sterben.'“
Wenn Ärzte ihren Patienten solche Ängste einreden, ist es dann unvernünftig anzunehmen, dass es zumindest ein Problem mit der Untererfassung von unerwünschten Ereignissen nach einer Impfung gibt? Welcher Arzt, der so dogmatisch zu seinem neuesten Pharmacocktail steht, wird in Betracht ziehen (geschweige denn zugeben), dass es ein Problem damit geben könnte?
Im U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) sind bis zum 10. Dezember 2021 mehr als 3.604 Berichte über Spontanaborte, Fehlgeburten, Totgeburten und den Tod von Neugeborenen erfasst. Dazu gehören Tausende von Fehlgeburten und frühen Schwangerschaftsverlusten kurz nach der Injektion der experimentellen genverändernden mRNA-COVID-Impfstoffe, Berichte über Babys, die plötzlich aufhören zu wachsen oder im Mutterleib einen Schlaganfall erleiden, über missgebildete Babys, ein Baby, das an einer entzündeten Plazenta stirbt, und ein Baby, das mit tödlichen Blutungen aus Mund, Nase und Lunge geboren wird. Erstaunlich viele dieser Berichte vermerken, dass keine Autopsie durchgeführt wurde und lassen „keine weiteren Informationen“ zu. Es scheint, als ob die Gesundheitsbehörden nicht wissen wollen, woran diese Babys gestorben sind – auch wenn es viele vernünftige Theorien gibt, die erklären könnten, warum es zu diesen Vorfällen kommen könnte.
VigiBase-Daten
Angesichts der hohen Zahl der verabreichten Dosen steigt die Zahl der unerwünschten Ereignisse weiter an. VigiBase, die Datenbank der Weltgesundheitsorganisation, meldet unter anderem Schwangerschaftskomplikationen:
3.952 Spontanabtreibungen
353 fötale Todesfälle
189 Fehlgeburten
166 vorzeitige Geburten
160 Frühgeburten
154 Fehlgeburten
150 langsame Bewegungen des ungeborenen Kindes
146 Blutungen in der Schwangerschaft
132 vorzeitige Entbindungen
123 Wachstumsstörung des Fötus
120 Totgeburten
105 Eileiterschwangerschaften
90 Präeklampsie
Problematische Studien
Die Gesundheitsbehörden rechtfertigen diese Gefahren mit der Behauptung, dass Frauen (oder ihre Babys) bei einer Exposition gegenüber dem Virus mit größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit davon betroffen sind als bei einer Exposition gegenüber dem Impfstoff – sie liefern jedoch keine Beweise dafür. Die Studie, auf die sie sich am meisten berufen, stammt von der CDC selbst. Sie vergleicht die Totgeburtenraten von 1.249.634 Entbindungen in 736 Krankenhäusern zwischen März 2020 und September 2021 unter Frauen mit und ohne COVID-Infektion und stellt fest, dass es tatsächlich einen Anstieg der Totgeburten gab – aber nicht auf dem Höhepunkt der ersten tödlichen Welle des Virus, sondern nur „während der Periode des Vorherrschens der Delta-Variante“, d.h. nachdem schwangere Frauen zur Impfung gedrängt worden waren. Die CDC würde nicht in Betracht ziehen, dass die experimentellen mRNA-Injektionen der „neuen Plattform“ der Grund dafür sein könnten, dass nur 0,98 % der von COVID-19 betroffenen Geburten vor der Delta-Phase von Totgeburten betroffen waren, verglichen mit 2,70 % nach Einführung der Impfstoffe.
„Der Impfstatus konnte in dieser Analyse nicht bewertet werden“, schreibt die CDC. Dies ist die Behörde, die Impfungen vorschreibt und landesweit QR-Codes einführt. Sie kann von Ihnen verlangen, dass Sie wissen, ob Sie geimpft sind oder nicht, wenn Sie in Ihr örtliches Restaurant, ins Fitnessstudio oder zu einem Fußballspiel gehen wollen, aber für eine nationale Studie über ihre „kritischste“, angeblich lebensrettende Intervention während einer angeblich beispiellosen globalen Pandemie ist es für die mächtigste Gesundheitsbehörde der Welt einfach nicht möglich, den Impfstatus zu ermitteln? Jeder weiß, dass jede schwangere Frau, die in den letzten 18 Monaten ein Krankenhaus betrat, einem COVID-Test unterzogen wurde. Die CDC weiß, welche Frauen geimpft waren und welche nicht, sie will es uns nur nicht sagen.
COVID-Impfstoff-Wissenschaft ist wie ihre Abtreibungs-„Wissenschaft„
Stattdessen greifen die CDC-„Experten“ auf Plattitüden zurück. „Da die COVID-19-Impfstoffe jedoch hochwirksam sind und die COVID-19-Impfquote bei schwangeren Frauen im Juli 2021 bei etwa 30 % lag, waren die meisten Frauen mit COVID-19 bei der Entbindung wahrscheinlich nicht geimpft“ (Hervorhebung hinzugefügt). Warum klingt das so unwissenschaftlich? Gute Wissenschaft ist normalerweise keine Annahme, die auf einem Slogan basiert, der einer Schätzung hinzugefügt wird. Haben wir diese Art von Wissenschaft nicht schon einmal gesehen? Als sie uns sagten, dass Frauen nach einer Abtreibung keine Komplikationen haben – und die CDC ihre magische Verschwindetat all der Sepsis und der Blutungen, der perforierten Gebärmütter und der psychologischen Folgeerscheinungen nach einer Abtreibung vollführte? Sie bezahlen einfach die richtigen Wissenschaftler, um die Daten zu manipulieren und die unerwünschten Zahlen zu beschönigen, bis sie verschwinden. Es gibt nichts zu sehen. Die Impfstoffwissenschaft ist genau wie die Abtreibungswissenschaft. Jetzt verschmelzen sie buchstäblich.
82 % Schwangerschaftsverlust?
Eine weitere Studie, auf die sich die „Experten“ stützen, stammt aus dem New England Journal of Medicine. Die Autoren der CDC sahen sich jedoch gezwungen, eine umfassende Korrektur vorzunehmen, als Analysten feststellten, dass ihre Datenberechnungen tatsächlich die Möglichkeit einer 82%igen Fehlgeburtsrate in der Frühschwangerschaft aufzeigten, während sie zu dem Schluss kamen, dass COVID-Impfungen sicher und wirksam seien.
Ursprünglich wurde die Studie mit Tabelle 4 veröffentlicht, die „Spontanaborte“ nach der Impfung zeigte. Die Autoren behaupteten, dass 104 Schwangerschaftsverluste geteilt durch 827 Schwangerschaften eine Schwangerschaftsverlustrate von 12,6 % ergäben, was in einem normalen Bereich liege. Wie Deanna McLeod, eine professionelle Krebsdatenanalystin von Kaleidoscope Strategic Inc. in Toronto, und ihre Kollegen jedoch in einem Schreiben an das NEJM feststellten, stand im Kleingedruckten unter der Tabelle die Aussage, dass „insgesamt 700 Teilnehmerinnen ihre erste zulässige Dosis im dritten Trimester erhielten“. Da sich die Definition eines Spontanabbruchs auf einen Schwangerschaftsverlust unter 20 Wochen bezieht, bedeutete dies, dass 700 Frauen nicht in den Nenner gehörten, da sie zum Zeitpunkt der Impfung bereits über den Punkt hinaus waren, an dem ein Spontanabbruch möglich war. Richtig gelesen, änderte sich der Anteil also von 104/827 auf 104/127 (81,9 %). Daraus ergibt sich eine Schwangerschaftsverlustrate von 82 % für die Schwangerschaften im ersten Trimester.
Die CDC-Experten schrieben eine Korrektur, aber das New England Journal of Medicine löschte den fehlerhaften Nenner aus der ursprünglichen Veröffentlichung und behielt die gleichen Schlussfolgerungen bei.
Die Zahl von 82 % ist schon oft genannt worden, und McLeod sagte gegenüber LifeSite, dass es sich dabei wahrscheinlich um eine Überschätzung handelt, aber das tatsächliche Schwangerschaftsergebnis ist immer noch nicht verfügbar, und tatsächlich haben andere Wissenschaftler die Daten untersucht und eine Frühschwangerschaftsverlustrate von 91,2 % berechnet. Diese Zahlen passen zu den versteckten Daten von Pfizer.
Die Forscher veröffentlichten eine Folgestudie, die jedoch ebenso fehlerhaft war. „Erstens gehen sie von der absurden Prämisse aus, dass es keinen zwingenden biologischen Grund für die Annahme gibt, dass die mRNA-COVID-19-Impfung (entweder vor der Empfängnis oder während der Schwangerschaft) ein Risiko für die Schwangerschaft darstellt“, sagt Jeremy Hammond, ein unabhängiger Journalist und politischer Analyst, der Daten zur Grippeimpfung in der Schwangerschaft analysiert hat. „Das ist natürlich eine glatte Lüge, da die mütterliche Immunaktivierung an und für sich ein zwingender biologischer Mechanismus ist, der bekanntermaßen mit fötalen Schäden verbunden ist.
Als Nächstes, so Hammond, „haben sie ihre Analyse des Risikos von Impfungen während der Schwangerschaft verfälscht, indem sie Frauen einschlossen, die bis zu 30 Tage vor der Empfängnis geimpft worden waren, ohne dafür einen Grund anzugeben.“ Dann definierten sie den Spontanabort als Schwangerschaftsverlust zwischen sechs und 20 Wochen und schlossen damit alle Verluste in den ersten fünf Wochen aus (in denen 90 % der Spontanabbrüche auftreten).
„Das bedeutet, dass eine Frau, die sich impfen ließ, drei Wochen später schwanger wurde und sechs Schwangerschaftswochen ohne Fehlgeburt überstand, eingeschlossen wurde“, sagt Hammond, „während eine Frau, die sich impfen ließ, drei Wochen später schwanger wurde und fünf Wochen später eine Fehlgeburt hatte, ausgeschlossen wurde. Dies führt offensichtlich zu einer Verzerrung der Daten zugunsten der Feststellung, dass kein erhöhtes Risiko für eine Fehlgeburt besteht.
All dies zeigt uns, dass es Gesundheitsbehörden und Wissenschaftler gibt, die bereit sind, Daten zu manipulieren, um pharmazeutische Interessen zu schützen und nicht die Frauen und Babys, denen sie dienen sollen. Zumindest einige der Geschichten über Totgeburten, Blutungen und Fehlgeburten stehen im Zusammenhang mit den experimentellen neuen Injektionen – vielleicht sind es viel mehr als wir denken. Aber es wird noch lange dauern – und viele weitere Babys werden ihr Leben verlieren – bis wir die ganze Wahrheit erfahren.
QUELLEN:
FOIA DOCS REVEAL PFIZER SHOT CAUSED AVALANCHE OF MISCARRIAGES, STILLBORN BABIES: www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/horrifying-hidden-pfizer-data-...
uncutnews.ch/dokumente-enthuellen-dass-die-pfizer-spritze...
i think there was talk of using these for her christmas cards that year...
PLEASE NOTE: This image is copyright 2004 Addison Godel. It is pending registration with the US Electronic Copyright Office. All rights reserved. Unauthorized publication of this image, or images derived therefrom, may be subject to legal action.
Update for those folks looking for answers/statements from me, but who are understandably disinclined to read all the comments below, and at the various linked images where I've chimed in....
1) Yes, this is the real photo. Yes, the Palin one is a Photoshop job. No, I didn't do the Photoshop - that turned out to be InnocuousFun who I had never met or heard of before all this. No, it's not a "real" gun.
A concise and accurate summary of the significant facts can be found at www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_that_a_real_photo_of_sa.... Where other sources contradict that account, or my statements here, trust the latter. FactCheck, as far as I've been able to discern, is as dry and nonpartisan as you can expect for the internet - certainly better than you'll get from my own forays into campaign bloggery!
To be avoided: Fox News's article on the episode, which manages to be a screed against a rival news organization's ostensibly poor fact-checking, while being itself wrong on points that could have easily been confirmed by either reading the FactCheck story or contacting me. I am flattered that they think Elizabeth was my girlfriend - then or ever - but, very sadly, this was not the case.
2) No, I cannot give you any more information about Elizabeth. No, I can't tell you her side of the story. I am uncomfortable issuing statements on her behalf or taking on the role of being her "manager" or anything similar; for her part, she is mainly concerned about her privacy. Both of us are riddled with mixed feelings about the Photoshop image, which makes issuing a definitive "statement" difficult; as well, it seems clear that the blogosphere/commentosphere will inevitably find its own meanings for anything we'd attempt to say. That's the way the world works - but the main point is that both of us kind of wish this whole thing would go away, not from our lives so much as from people's inboxes. More on this below.
3) Thanks for your interest, but I am really not inclined to participate in any online fora, guest blogs, podcasts, et cetera. Major news organizations should refer to the FactCheck story. If you want to put me on national television, get in touch, but only if you are willing to pay travel expenses to somewhere I'd want to visit anyway, plus charitable gifts. What I would really prefer is to be put on "Jeopardy!" and to have this be my cutesy anecdote that Alex asks me about after the first commercial break.
My reticence doesn't stem from any hostility to anybody who's written with such requests, but mainly from a sense that I personally don't have much more to say than I'm saying here, and that everyone's time would really be better spent covering actual news.
4) I am flattered by those who think I somehow have the power to wipe the Palin 'shop off the Internet, but this strikes me as unrealistic in the extreme. Strangers on my bus to work in the morning have seen the thing. Google turns up hundreds of thousands of hits for "'sarah palin' bikini." It's out of my hands - so whether you agree with my statements on this page or not, don't hold the 'shop image's existence, or distributed reach, over my head as something for which I should be responsible.
At the same time, I don't appreciate or accept my photo being used for profit, in whatever its altered state, without my permission or even my knowledge. If you see it for sale in any context, please let me know. This may also be a losing battle but frankly it is weird enough seeing my photo (and my friend's body) all over the Internet - I really don't want to see them on a T-Shirt.
The bottom line: I'm not a spokesperson for the left, for feminism, or for Barack Obama's campaign. I'm just some guy who took a photo four years ago and posted it on this blog two years ago, for the delight and entertainment of my friends. When the Palin 'shop first broke, I was amused because, I mean, I knew it was Elizabeth and it was just...bizarre. I also figured it was just one of countless 'shops being done at that time - I really could not have imagined, when it first appeared in my browser, that it would become as ubiquitous as it has.
I rather wish it hadn't. We deserve better from this election than deception and worn-out old narratives. It's deception to keep forwarding along a fake photo as a real one. It's a worn-out old narrative to imply that a female candidate (for any position, political or not) is unqualified because she has a body and sometimes puts a bathing suit on it (the "bimbo" frame-up).
Sarah Palin is in my view unqualified to be President, and being qualified to be President is really the only qualification to be Vice President. But she's not unqualified because she's a woman, or because of what's going on in her family, or because some Internet person put her face on the photo of some other Internet person. Her lack of qualification broadcasts itself right off of her resume, and is indeed the driving force behind her narrative as "hockey mom"; if she were qualified, she would lose the glow of the Everyperson.
Similarly, I think it's clear that Sarah Palin, to the extent that she has any documented policy convictions, stands for a vision of America with which I, along with millions of others disagree. Some aspects of that vision are what, no doubt, have lent this image an air of plausibility to many. Elizabeth was donning a particular stereotype of us Southerners when this photo was taken; it would have been read by our friends as hilariously out-of-character, but clearly to many people (on both ends of the Palin love/hate spectrum) they seem in-character for the Governor. But: we don't need the perverse patriotism of an American flag bathing suit (I still wonder how the Flag Code handles this) to point out how self-righteous patriotism of the "Liberals aren't really Americans!" variety poisons the well of our political discourse. And we don't need a BB gun to point out that the McCain/Palin ticket is a pro-gun ticket, calling gun control "a proven failure in fighting crime," opposing waiting periods for gun ownership, and seeking to end restrictions on assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition.
No doubt this will all blow over soon and this text will look like the overpreening ramblings of a small man trying to elevate his teacup's tempest to the status of a major news story. I would offer this, though: I didn't choose to be thrust into the brief, fourth-tier spotlight. All I chose to do was leave the photo up and link it from a version of the other image. I caught the 'shop very early in its cycle and could have very easily taken this down; eagle-eyed viewers would still recognize the tell-tale signs of 'shopping, but many more people who now know the truth probably would still be fooled. I'm not asking for a standing ovation, but to those who have their own ideas about what I could or should have done, I do ask you to imagine yourselves in my shoes. I never quite anticipated that my life's most significant contribution in either photography or politics would be that I would not deny authorship of a candid snapshot. To quote Batman's spooky growly voice: "What would you have me do?"
When the furor blows over and bloggers can again focus on, you know, the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, and energy, this blog will continue with its normal course: pictures of architecture with academic rambling that only five people care about; and pictures of days spent with my family and friends...including any future picnics at the rock quarry. It was, after all, a really lovely afternoon.
FACT CHECK: Wages are NOT keeping up with Biden’s inflation crisis.
Real wages are down over 5 percent since President Biden entered the Oval Office.
Since President Biden took office, the average worker has lost over $4,900 in real wages.
Chicago, IL
August 22nd, 2018
All photos © Joshua Mellin per the guidelines listed under "Owner settings" to the right.
USA Today cited this photo as evidence the Earth is a sphere: www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/12/05/fact-che...
Lying in general and the form of lying known as gaslighting is one of the Trump regime's most important tools for gaining and holding onto power. Donald Trump constantly says things that are demonstrably false and, on the rare occasion when someone actually challenges his lie, Trump deflects the challenge and continues spouting the same lie.
A current example is the following baseless claim:
"Trump, April 28: We are way ahead on testing. We are the best in the world on testing. We’ve tested much more than anybody else, times two — or every country combined. We’ve tested more than every country combined." Now that it's in Trump's repertoire, we'll be hearing it until Trump finds something else big to lie about.
You don't believe it, I don't believe it, yet Trump's base absorbs the lie and the damage is done. Here's Fact Check's piece demolishing Trump's lie: www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-covid-19-testing-claim-i...
This week Trump's spectral son-in-law Lil' Jared outdid his wife's old man when he, Jared, appeared on the ministry of propaganda's cable station to proclaim full victory in the effort to curb the covid virus. The reality could not be further from the truth. I felt compelled to respond.
Before getting to that, though, when I hear about the lies coming out of the Trump mob, I ask myself whether they are so cloistered and divorced from the world we inhabit that they actually believe what they're saying, or whether they're so morally bankrupt that they knowingly utter untruths and half-truths. Might both phenomena be occurring at the same time?
========================================================
Jared Kushner, a White House senior adviser and son-in-law to President Donald Trump, praised himself and the rest of the administration on Wednesday morning for its efforts to reopen the U.S. economy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kushner’s comments came after the nation’s death toll from coronavirus surpassed the Vietnam War.
“I think that we’ve achieved all the different milestones that are needed,” Kushner said during an interview on “Fox and Friends.” “So, the government — federal government — rose to the challenge and this is a GREAT SUCCESS STORY and I think that that’s really what needs to be told.”
talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jared-kushner-were-doing-amazi...
Bloody Hell.
========================================================
By: Rick Wilson
The Daily Beast
March 20, 2020
The cliché about authoritarian leaders being strong but brittle is coming true with Donald Trump. The cost of this lesson will be tallied in lives and a wrecked economy.
Donald Trump and his fans are learning that karmic externalities are a bitch. They're learning that you can get away with a chain of scams, business failures, bankruptcies, and branding disasters and win the presidency but still fail utterly as a president and a person.
It took a global pandemic, the bursting of the Fed-fueled stock market bubble, and an opponent Trump can't face. It doesn't read Twitter, watch Fox, or respond to derisive nicknames. It took a plague to peel back the scales from his eyes finally, and even now, too many Trumpist Republicans insist this is fine. Heckuva job, Trumpie.
His enablers know the truth and have tried to turn the battleship of bullshit toward it.
They know Trump didn't just mishandle the Coronavirus crisis, and he did so with his political standing and benefit in mind.
Trump spent six weeks claiming to his soft-minded followers that the worst public health crisis since the 1918 H1N1 Spanish Flu was a fake news Democratic media hoax.
He shook hands and shared microphones and touched his umber jowls and modeled what not to do even after he'd been in a room with people with the virus—doing his damnedest to make my warning that how Everything Trump Touches Dies a literal as well as a serious one.
Sure, we warned them a million times. The evidence before the election of 2016 was utterly clear to see and every damn minute of his corrupt and chaotic reign of misrule smacked Americans in the face like a cast-iron frying pan yielded by a vicious ex, but Republicans kept defending him. They kept excusing him. They kept cheering every fuckup, every crime, and every insult to America's charter and our character.
They excused every lie, forgave every incompetent utterance and ideological heresy. How's that working out now that the feces has impacted the rotating blades?
He can hold a thousand sweaty monster-Trump rallies, but when the call to leadership is bigger than shittweeting insults and delivering nicknames, Trump's world goes sideways.
He can do press conferences full of lies, whoppers, and time-machine hindsight like “I'd rate it at 10. I think we've done a great job” and “I don't take responsibility for anything at all” and “I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic” were capped by today's gem about how “It kind of snuck up on us.” This is a president, and a White House, out of its depth and out of its mind with the plain reality that he's making it up as he goes along. The scientists and doctors on the stage with him seem as focused on avoiding his wrath as they are on defeating the virus.
When tested by the fire of crisis, Trump showed us what he's always been: a weak, spoiled, intellectually vacant conman who has stumbled through a life of betrayal and failure papered over by bullshit and public relations. The media image from The Apprentice that hypnotized so many Trump voters was always the product of Mark Burnett's writers' room, not reality. The bold leader was a teleprompter confection, a D-grade celebrity playing a C-grade CEO in a reality show.
Sorry, MAGAs, but Trump must face blame for the viral Chernobyl that is rolling over our population now; the one thing you never get back when fighting an epidemic is time. He spent weeks spinning that COVID-10 was no big deal, and that there was no crisis about to scythe through our nation.
He had the usual vigorous ass-kissing from the human centipede of Trump media bootlicks, toadies, and ball-washers from the Fox C-suite down to lunatic bloggers and social-media flotsam. They've been very busy the last few days trying to retcon Trump's colossal incompetence and indifference from January until this week.
He soft-pedaled the crisis even as it grew in scope and risk. His minions and minders repeatedly said that this crisis was contained. He promised a vaccine that is, at best, a year away. He promised testing, without the intention or ability to deliver. He compared it to the common flu, which left disease specialists and epidemiologists heads exploding worldwide. He failed as a leader, from the very start.
In my political practice, one thing I handled outside campaigns was crisis management for politicians, corporations, and governments. While it's not always glamorous, crisis management specialists do a vital job of—to use a term of political art—unfucking human errors.
Good leadership helps. Good leaders react to a crisis swiftly and honestly. Bad leaders blameshift, lie, cover-up, and try to rewrite history. Good crisis leadership has a set of consistent characteristics; it is honest, transparent, and prompt. The path Trump chose, naturally, was the opposite.
Terrible leaders pretend there is no crisis, lie to their stakeholders, the press, and the public. They are frequently shocked by how bad it really looks from the outside. They minimize impacts, and issue statements that are either overly lawyered or blustery swagger. They hold daily press briefings with more heat than light, more hat than cattle.
Donald Trump's mistake with the COVID-19 pandemic was simple; the virus doesn't follow him on Twitter. The virus doesn't care about his rages. The virus doesn't care about the Trumphadis of Fox News, Breitbart, and elsewhere. It does what it does, and exploits time and complacency in its human hosts. Trump gave it a six-week pass.
The men and women from the CDC, HHS, and corporate America being dragged before the cameras to serve as a backdrop for the daily press briefings show it in their haunted eyes.
They know the CEO of this particular operation is President von Munchausen, and that their jobs have been made infinitely more difficult by his ineptitude—“Hey, let's put Jared in charge” said no one, ever—lies, delays, and the agitprop culture war strategy of this White House.
Why is every part of the Trump media apparatus trying to drag the Democrats into a culture war battle by calling the Coronavirus or COVID-19 the “Chinese Flu” or the “Wu-Flu” or the “Kung-Flu”? It's because they understand that it's the last refuge of the scoundrel culture they've created.
They want the MAGA base to have a political enemy to attack, and there's nothing that pisses off Trump's followers more than being called racists, even as they earn that merit badge over and over. Secretary of Hate Stephen Miller and Oberst-Docuhenführer Steve Bannon are rubbing their hands and cackling like movie villains. They're delighted to expand their propaganda war beyond the usual fear centers; instead of Mexican rapists, immigrant caravans, and shithole countries, they're rebooting the old Yellow Peril tropes for their remixed racist memes.
The catalog of excuses for Donald Trump's mishandling of the early, vital weeks of the Coronavirus story will go down in the annals of political mendacity, in part because the evidence is so abundant, so much video exists, and the change in tone from complacency to panic is so evident.
The Trump media agitprop arm’s desperate attempt to pretend their robust “it's just the flu” and “this is just duh librul media trying to hurt Trump” defenses never happened is astounding. The internet remembers, and they can't undo the last six weeks of excuse-making on Trump's behalf.
There are good leaders, bad leaders, and lucky leaders. Sometimes good leaders have bad luck. Sometimes bad leaders have good luck. This time, we've got a bad leader whose luck finally ran out, and whose reservoir of trust outside his base is essentially zero.
And we're not even at the end of the beginning of this pandemic. God help us.
www.thedailybeast.com/you-cheered-as-he-fucked-up-no-take...
The more desperate Donald Trump gets, the more dangerous he becomes. This was the message on a poster I did last month. And, as we get get closer to the election, the President's actions pose a threat to our country.
As he’s seen his popularity plummet, he’s created numerous distractions to bury his malfeasance. His aim is to delegitimize the election, a hallmark of our democracy. It seems unfathomable a president would do such a thing. But Donald Trump is no ordinary president. After four years of his reign, it’s clear he has no respect for our Constitution nor the welfare of the American people. He says our election will be rigged. Because the pandemic has failed to abate, he’s called for its delay. Despite our vulnerability voting in person, he warns us of the dangers of mail-in voting, even though he’s voted this way for years. And in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, he suggested he may not accept the results of the election. He’s become so desperate, he no longer falls on pretense. In March 2020 he said on Fox News "If you ever agreed to [mail-in voting], you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again." And in August 2020 he admitted he would block a funding bill to the post office to stop voting by mail.
To thwart the practice, the President has appointed Trump donor and heavy investor in post office competitors Louis DeJoy as Postmaster General to destroy the post office’s ability to carry out its mandate. Fortune magazine reviewed an internal post office memo that stated DeJoy will intentionally slow mail delivery as a cost-cutting measure. "Overtime will be eliminated… If the plants run late they will keep the mail for the next day. “If we cannot deliver all the mail due to call offs or shortage of people and you have no other help, the mail will not go out." In addition, mail sorting machines, which can handle over 36,000 pieces of mail per hour run by only two employees, are being removed. It’s estimated that it would take 30 employees to sort the same volume of mail by hand. As a former letter carrier, I can attest to the time it accurately takes to do that.
The traditional difference between the Republican and Democrat parties has been the role and size of government. Democrats believe it’s part of our government’s responsibility to make sure our infrastructure is sound and Americans can lead decent lives with living wages. No one should fall through the cracks. In the past, the Republican Party gave that responsibility to the corporate sector and were fiscal hawks on the deficit. The smaller the government, the better. It was the GOP’s belief that corporate profits would lead to more jobs and better wages. But studies have shown this trickle-down economy theory doesn’t work. Worse, capitalism has ignored workers’ needs. Instead, it rewards its stockholders for companies’ successes. And today’s GOP couldn’t care less about the size of the deficit.
Instead, the Republican Party has turned its attention to the perils of their own existence. As demographics change, and the party’s older White base has diminished, they are relying more and more on limiting the voting rights of the new majorities of Blacks, Latinos, and other groups. It has become their obsession to prevent certain people from voting. And they have found their leader in Donald Trump.
This election is the People's Wall against Donald Trump’s tyranny. It’s the only thing standing between our democracy and his authoritarianism. Worse yet, he has had help from collaborators in this farce: Attorney General William Barr, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and just about every Republican senator and representative in Congress (to say nothing of the Russians). During Trump's tenure and the GOP's majority in the Senate, there has been no unified federal COVID-19 strategy. The rich have received tax cuts and Trump’s proposed payroll tax cut will not help the unemployed, those who have lost their jobs because of the pandemic. Senator McConnell adjourned the Senate until after Labor Day without passing an important stimulus bill, and the President has admitted he wants to eliminate mail-in voting to usurp the will of the people.
The state of America’s union? Clearly, we’re on our own.
Feel free to pass this poster on. It's free to download here (click on the down arrow just to the lower right of the image).
See the rest of the posters from the Chamomile Tea Party! Digital high res downloads are free here (click the down arrow on the lower right side of the image). Other options are available. And join our Facebook group.
Follow the history of our country's political intransigence from 2010-2018 through a six-part exhibit of these posters on Google Arts & Culture.
In his National Conservatism Conference keynote address, Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley recently stated, “Many men in this country are in crisis, and their ranks are swelling.” Hawley blames the left. As politicians often do, he speaks in broad strokes and oversimplifications. “The left’s attack on America leads directly to an attack on manhood.” Political misdirection is nothing new for Hawley or the Republicans.
On January 6, 2021, Hawley raised his fist to support Capitol insurrectionists. With presidential aspirations, the masculinity he supports threatened the Vice President and Congress with a noose, baseball bats, and firearms. They also assaulted police and left many dead. A year later, Congressional staff, from legislative aides to blue-collar workers, are still unnerved by the attack. And many are leaving jobs they once loved.
Men’s problems are diverse and replay over generations. Understanding is complex. Solutions run the gamut from Robert Bly’s attempts to reconnect old myths with boys’ development to blaming feminism. Just as women’s rights are under attack, the courts have been slow to recognize the value of fathers’ parental rights. Both men’s and women’s roles are under intense scrutiny, from the #MeToo movement to bitter backlashes against gender equality. Hawley’s words and actions do nothing to bring about change. Instead, he uses male disenfranchisement to enrage conservatives but offers no concrete solutions. He has no interest in bettering men’s lives. He simply wants to politicize them for his personal aspirations.
My father grew up in a violent family. My grandfather physically and sexually abused my grandmother. In the 1930s, she divorced him, and the court awarded her child support, but my grandfather refused to pay. It’s hard enough today for single mothers to raise a family. Back then, it was impossible. To survive, she had to remarry him. My father was not immune to this aggression. My grandparents sent him to military school to “straighten him out.” Only after her children were adults did my grandmother divorce her husband for the last time.
Dad didn’t follow in his father’s footsteps. But he never talked about his childhood, and it scarred him. He could lash out indiscriminately, often without rhyme or reason. I didn’t know where the line was, so I was always on edge. Once, after our obligatory father/son attendance at my elementary school’s sex education night, as we drove home and with no prologue, my father said to me, “If you ever touch your sister, I will kill you.” My father had just handed me my early inheritance. At eleven, I was too young to rationalize or question it. And we never talked about it again. It would take decades before I knew what to do with it. While my sister rebelled in her teens, my rebellion didn’t come until my 20s. I did what I was told because I feared my father’s wrath. It’s easy to see how I might have grown up and mirrored his behavior, but that’s not what happened.
As I grew older, I probed my father’s modus vivendi, discovering his secrets and his shame. I wanted to connect with him, but if I got too close, he’d retreat. I remember telling him, “Someday, you’re going to die, and we will never have talked.” We never did. But I learned how to deal with him and disarm his anger. And finally, I learned how to tell him how I would live my life. By that point, it didn’t matter if he understood. I no longer needed his approval. It only mattered that I was resolute and expressed myself without malice. I would not pass down this pattern to my family.
So, as a man with my own history, I have a stake in Senator Hawley’s definition of masculinity. I’m also trying to understand the conflicting ways we talk about gender. With men’s roles in constant flux, it is no simple task to make sense of them. Physically stronger and full of testosterone, nature conditioned us to fight predators, the elements, and other men. For many, that remains our prime duty. Will Smith felt the need to protect and defend his wife at the 2022 Academy Awards, slapping Chris Rock on stage after he made a lame joke about Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. His duty? His testosterone? His stress? Or, as Denzel Washington warned, “At your highest moment, be careful. That’s when the devil comes for you”? Ms. Smith, more wisely, didn’t feel compelled to comment nor defend herself.
A recent study published by the British Journal of Psychology shows that men with high testosterone levels are more likely to engage in unethical behavior when competing with other men. Study authors Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno and Eric Stenstrom believe that “high testosterone men become angry and behave unethically to gain status and increase the likelihood of attracting women.” But we are also a sensitive lot for all our bravado, wasting our energy by hiding it from our families and friends.
Now in my 70s, I’ve seen significant improvements in gender equality over my lifetime. But it hasn’t been enough or universally accepted. Legalized abortion seems as close to extinction now as it’s ever been. Still, no one is holding men accountable for unwanted pregnancies. A close look at women’s lives requires the same for men. The spectrum of male behavior is nuanced—burrowed deep within our society’s zeitgeist. Politicians don’t like nuance. It muddies their message. Hawley uses a sledgehammer to solidify entrenched traditions, and men are caught in this tug-of-war.
China recently banned effeminate men from television. “Broadcasters must ‘resolutely put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics,’ the [Chinese] TV regulator said, using an insulting slang term for effeminate men—niang pao, or literally, girlie guns.” Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro mocked his aides who wore masks by calling their protective gear “coisa de viado,” roughly translated “for fairies.” He thinks men’s masculinity can protect them from COVID.
Not only is this systematic tar pit an injustice, but it’s also a waste of our human capital. In 2014, the Congressional Budget Office reported that 16% of American men were incarcerated or jobless, an increase from 11% in 1980. The rate for minorities was much more significant than for Whites. So when we discuss masculinity, we can’t ignore race, education, culture, and poverty as essential factors. According to Psychology Today, “Mass shootings have tripled since 2011, with the majority carried out by young men, while young male suicide rates have increased fifty percent since 1994.”
While many attempt to create a language that clarifies and facilitates fruitful discussions, that same language can also serve as coded shorthand, allowing us to jump to conclusions. “Toxic masculinity” is the latest phrase for men’s anger and estrangement. Men can indeed be toxic, both to women and to each other. But not all men act that way. To promote those discussions, ask us questions about what we mean, especially on social media, where anonymity hides the context of our lives. “Why did you say that?” offers us a chance to explain (or reveal the misogyny we might defend).
Howard J. Ross, the author of Everyday Bias, says, “Learning to slow down decision-making, especially when it affects other people, can help reduce the impact of bias.” Our biases make us prone to reaction instead of reflection. In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, social psychologist Daniel Kahneman looked at how we make these decisions. According to Kahneman, we use two different systems to come to our conclusions. One is fast, automatic, and impulsive: full of impressions, intuition, and emotions. This is precisely what happens on social media. The second is slow and more considered and serves as our self-control. Kahneman writes, “Every human being has had the experience of not telling someone to go to hell.” We’ve become a reactive nation. Slowing down would make for more valuable discourse.
After a Facebook friend mentioned they were anxious, I suggested finding ways to calm down might be wise. Women immediately chastised me for telling a woman to calm down. To be honest, I didn’t even know my Facebook friend was a woman. Her online name was a gender-neutral “nom de plume.” Someone was upset, and that concerned me. I crossed a line without even knowing it.
Sometimes, I act like a “typical guy” despite my best efforts. I laugh—I’m still a work in progress, even at my age. Men can be prone to thoughtless mansplaining with women and other men (it’s part of our competitive, know-it-all nature). But that’s not what I was doing here. I backed off, not even attempting to explain. Cancel culture is indiscriminate and swift. We often talk over each other without listening. Anger in the absence of context is harmful. When groups gang up on individuals, it can be debilitating. Both men and women need to slow our reactions down to better gauge our responses.
After watching a recent Saturday Night Live sketch called “Man Park,” I lamented my lack of close male friends. This isolation has been especially hard for me during the pandemic. In the sketch, women come home to their boyfriends only to be inundated with non-stop chatter after their partners’ days alone. The women decide to take their BFs to the Man Park, where they can find social interaction and comradery. It takes a concerted effort for men to develop friendships, and they’re often more competitive than supportive. Robert Bly would probably approve of man parks, and I see franchise opportunities.
In reaction to this SNL sketch, Dr. Avrum Weiss wrote in “The High Cost of Loneliness,” boys start out feeling as connected in their friendships as girls do. But as they grow, they neglect personal relationships to pursue external success. This has been true for me. And many of my present relationships come about from being part of a couple. Weiss says, “Eighty percent of successful suicides are men, and one of the leading contributing factors is loneliness.” It’s as important a risk factor to longevity as exercise, smoking, and obesity.
Look at how we treat our veterans. We praise them for their strength and heroism on the battlefield, yet we do little for their PTSD when they return home. And, as women take on traditionally male roles, they encounter the same thing. Society often judges both women and men harshly when they express cross-gender behavior. Whatever our genders, our evolutions are intrinsically linked. Whether or not we like it, we’re in this together.
Like COVID vaccinations and mask mandates, Josh Hawley has politicized manhood, pointing to the left as a threat to men. It’s an oversimplification that does none of us any justice. The culmination of his argument is clear: “[The left wants] to define the traditional masculine virtues—things like courage, and independence, and assertiveness—as a danger to society.” This is nothing more than toxic propaganda. These are valuable assets in both men and women; the left has no interest in replacing them. If you’re concerned about men’s lives, invest in our empathy, not in political opportunism.
But there is room to reimagine what it means to be a man. And men need to take the lead. We need to create viable alternatives to the “good ole boy” network (often based on financial success). Nurturing the values that allow us to be more sensitive to others and attentive to our needs would help free ourselves from this unrealistic paradigm. Government and companies can help by creating policies that encourage us to spend more time with our families, like paid paternity leave. This would support new patterns for a successful life. Josh Hawley would find this ridiculous. Evolution will be slow given the multitudes who live by his contorted view.
Despite inroads into gender equality, men still value their fortitude above all—not only physical strength but the wherewithal to surmount any obstacle. This exacts an enormous price in our daily lives, and few fathers offer, let alone know any alternatives. Fewer talk to their sons about their passions and emotions, and peer pressure silences us.
Senator Hawley, our country’s founders, handed down a document that is a blueprint for how we live our lives as Americans. Your words offer no such plan. Instead, they perpetuate outdated stereotypes about men that cannot be sustained in the 21st century. They hurt rather than help us live our best lives. I’ve never forgotten what my father passed down to me. That legacy will go no further. And neither should yours.
Josh Hawley blames the left for men’s problems. Men like Josh Hawley are the problem.
Feel free to pass this poster on. It's free to download here (click on the down arrow just to the lower right of the image).
See the rest of the posters from the Chamomile Tea Party! Digital high res downloads are free here (click the down arrow on the lower right side of the image). Other options are available. And join our Facebook group.
Follow the history of our country's political intransigence from 2010-2020 through a eight-part exhibit of these posters on Google Arts & Culture.
A missing filter... Picture or maybe in the air of the time that brews a little anguish, it grinds ideas by dint of filtering the words... the cunning life with a twist. Angel or mill?
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in conspiracy theories and misinformation about the scale of the pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease.[1][2][3] False information, including intentional disinformation, has been spread through social media,[2][4] text messages,[5] and mass media,[6] including the tabloid media,[7] conservative media,[8][9] state media of countries such as China,[10][11] Russia,[12][13] Iran,[14] and Turkmenistan.[2][15] It has also been spread by state-backed covert operations to generate panic and sow distrust in other countries.[16][17]
Misinformation has been propagated by celebrities, politicians[18][19] (including heads of state in countries such as the United States,[20][21] Iran,[22] and Brazil[23]), and other prominent public figures.[24] Commercial scams have claimed to offer at-home tests, supposed preventives, and "miracle" cures.[25][26] Politicians and leaders of some countries have promoted purported cures, while some religious groups said that the faith of their followers and God will protect them from the virus.[27][28][29] Others have claimed the virus is a lab-developed bio-weapon that was accidentally leaked,[30][31] or deliberately designed to target a country,[32] or one with a patented vaccine, a population control scheme, the result of a spy operation,[3][4] or linked to 5G networks.[33]
The World Health Organization has declared an "infodemic" of incorrect information about the virus, which poses risks to global health.[2]
Types and origin and effect
On January 30, the BBC reported about the increasing spread of conspiracy theories and false health advice in relation to COVID-19. Notable examples at the time included false health advice shared on social media and private chats, as well as conspiracy theories such as the origin in bat soup and the outbreak being planned with the participation of the Pirbright Institute.[1][34] On January 31, The Guardian listed seven instances of misinformation, adding the conspiracy theories about bioweapons and the link to 5G technology, and including varied false health advice.[35]
In an attempt to speed up research sharing, many researches have turned to preprint servers such as arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv or SSRN. Papers can be uploaded to these servers without peer review or any other editorial process that ensures research quality. Some of these papers have contributed to the spread of conspiracy theories. The most notable case was a preprint paper uploaded to bioRxiv which claimed that the virus contained HIV "insertions". Following the controversy, the paper was withdrawn.[36][37][38]
According to a study published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, most misinformation related to COVID-19 involves "various forms of reconfiguration, where existing and often true information is spun, twisted, recontextualised, or reworked". While less misinformation "was completely fabricated". The study found no deep fakes in the studied sample. The study also found that "top-down misinformation from politicians, celebrities, and other prominent public figures", while accounting for a minority of the samples, captured a majority of the social media engagement. According to their classification, the largest category of misinformation (39%) includes "misleading or false claims about the actions or policies of public authorities, including government and international bodies like the WHO or the UN".[39]
A natural experiment correlated coronavirus misinformation with increased infection and death; of two similar television news shows on the same network, one took coronavirus seriously about a month earlier than the other. People and groups exposed to the slow-response news show had higher infection and death rates.[40]
The misinformations have been used by politicians, interest groups, and state actors in many countries to scapegoat other countries for the mishandling of the domestic responses, as well as furthering political, financial agenda.[41][42][43]
Combative efforts
Further information: Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on journalism
File:ITU - AI for Good Webinar Series - COVID-19 Misinformation and Disinformation during COVID-19.webm
International Telecommunication Union
On February 2, the World Health Organization (WHO) described a "massive infodemic", citing an over-abundance of reported information, accurate and false, about the virus that "makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it". The WHO stated that the high demand for timely and trustworthy information has incentivised the creation of a direct WHO 24/7 myth-busting hotline where its communication and social media teams have been monitoring and responding to misinformation through its website and social media pages.[44][45][46] The WHO specifically debunked several claims as false, including the claim that a person can tell if they have the virus or not simply by holding their breath; the claim that drinking large amounts of water will protect against the virus; and the claim that gargling salt water prevents infection.[47]
In early February, Facebook, Twitter and Google said they were working with WHO to address "misinformation".[48] In a blogpost, Facebook stated they would remove content flagged by global health organizations and local authorities that violate its content policy on misinformation leading to "physical harm".[49] Facebook is also giving free advertising to WHO.[50] Nonetheless, a week after Trump's speculation that sunlight could kill the virus, the New York Times found "780 Facebook groups, 290 Facebook pages, nine Instagram accounts and thousands of tweets pushing UV light therapies," content which those companies declined to remove from their platforms.[51]
At the end of February, Amazon removed more than a million products claimed to cure or protect against coronavirus, and removed tens of thousands of listings for health products whose prices were "significantly higher than recent prices offered on or off Amazon", although numerous items were "still being sold at unusually high prices" as of February 28.[52]
Millions of instances of COVID-19 misinformation have occurred across a number of online platforms.[53] Other fake news researchers noted certain rumors started in China; many of them later spread to Korea and the United States, prompting several universities in Korea to start the multilingual Facts Before Rumors campaign to separate common claims seen online.[54][55][56][57]
The media has praised Wikipedia's coverage of COVID-19 and its combating the inclusion of misinformation through efforts led by the Wiki Project Med Foundation and the English-language Wikipedia's WikiProject Medicine, among other groups.[58][59][60]
Many local newspapers have been severely affected by losses in advertising revenues from coronavirus; journalists have been laid off, and some have closed altogether.[61]
Many newspapers with paywalls lowered them for some or all their coronavirus coverage.[62][63] Many scientific publishers made scientific papers related to the outbreak open access.[64]
The Turkish Interior Ministry has been arresting social media users whose posts were "targeting officials and spreading panic and fear by suggesting the virus had spread widely in Turkey and that officials had taken insufficient measures".[65] Iran's military said 3600 people have been arrested for "spreading rumors" about coronavirus in the country.[66] In Cambodia, some individuals who expressed concerns about the spread of COVID-19 have been arrested on fake news charges.[67][68] Algerian lawmakers passed a law criminalising "fake news" deemed harmful to "public order and state security".[69] In the Philippines,[70] China,[71] India,[72][73] Egypt,[74] Bangladesh,[75] Morocco,[76] Pakistan,[77] Saudi Arabia,[78] Oman,[79] Iran,[80] Vietnam, Laos,[81] Indonesia,[73] Mongolia,[73] Sri Lanka,[73] Kenya, South Africa,[82] Somalia,[83] Thailand,[84] Kazakhstan,[85] Azerbaijan,[86] Malaysia[87] and Hong Kong, people have been arrested for allegedly spreading false information about the coronavirus pandemic.[88][73] The United Arab Emirates have introduced criminal penalties for the spread of misinformation and rumours related to the outbreak.[89]
Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories have appeared both in social media and in mainstream news outlets, and are heavily influenced by geopolitics.[90]
Accidental leakage
Virologist and immunologist Vincent R. Racaniello said that "accident theories – and the lab-made theories before them – reflect a lack of understanding of the genetic make-up of Sars-CoV-2."[91]
A number of allegations have emerged supposing a link between the virus and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); among these is that the virus was an accidental leakage from WIV.[92] In 2017, U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright expressed caution when the WIV was expanded to become mainland China's first biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory, noting previous escapes of the SARS virus at other Chinese laboratories.[93] While Ebright refuted several conspiracy theories regarding the WIV (e.g., bioweapons research, or that the virus was engineered), he told BBC China this did not represent the possibility that the virus can be "completely ruled out" from entering the population due to a laboratory accident.[92] Various researchers contacted by NPR concluded there was "virtually no chance" (in NPR's words) that the pandemic virus had accidentally escaped from a laboratory.[94] Disinformation researcher Nina Jankowicz from Wilson Center indicates the lab leakage claim entered mainstream media in United States during April, propagated by pro-Trump news outlet.[43]
On February 14, 2020, Chinese scientists explored the possibility of accidental leakage and published speculations on scientific social networking website ResearchGate. The paper was neither peer-reviewed nor presented any evidence for its claims.[95] On March 5, the author of paper told Wall Street Journal in an interview why he decided to withdrew the paper by the end of February, stating: "the speculation about the possible origins in the post was based on published papers and media, and was not supported by direct proofs."[96][97] Several newspapers have referenced the paper.[95] Scientific American reported that Shi Zhengli, the lead researcher at WIV, started investigation on mishandling of experimental materials in the lab records, especially during disposal. She also tried to cross-check the novel coronavirus genome with the genetic information of other bat coronaviruses her team had collected. The result showed none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her team had sampled from bat caves.[98]
In February, it was alleged that the first person infected may have been a researcher at the institute named Huang Yanling.[99] Rumours circulated on Chinese social media that the researcher had become infected and died, prompting a denial from WIV, saying she was a graduate student enrolled in the Institute until 2015 and is not the patient zero.[100][99] In April, the conspiracy theory started to circulate around on Youtube and got picked up by conservative media, National Review.[101][6]
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that one of the WIV's lead researchers, Shi Zhengli, was the particular focus of personal attacks in Chinese social media alleging that her work on bat-based viruses was the source of the virus; this led Shi to post: "I swear with my life, [the virus] has nothing to do with the lab". When asked by the SCMP to comment on the attacks, Shi responded: "My time must be spent on more important matters".[102] Caixin reported Shi made further public statements against "perceived tinfoil-hat theories about the new virus's source", quoting her as saying: "The novel 2019 coronavirus is nature punishing the human race for keeping uncivilized living habits. I, Shi Zhengli, swear on my life that it has nothing to do with our laboratory".[103] Immunologist Vincent Racaniello stated that virus leaking theory "reflect a lack of understanding of the genetic make-up of Sars-CoV-2 and its relationship to the bat virus". He says the bat virus researched in the institution "would not have been able to infect humans—the human Sars-CoV-2 has additional changes that allows it to infect humans."[91]
On April 14, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, in response to questions about the virus being manufactured in a lab, said "... it's inconclusive, although the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural. But we don't know for certain."[104] On that same day, Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin detailed a leaked cable of a 2018 trip made to the WIV by scientists from the U.S. Embassy. The article was referenced and cited by conservative media to push the lab leakage theory.[43] Rogin's article went on to say that "What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab's work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic."[105] Rogin's article pointed out there was no evidence that the coronavirus was engineered, "But that is not the same as saying it didn't come from the lab, which spent years testing bat coronaviruses in animals."[105] The article went on to quote Xiao Qiang, a research scientist at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, "I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. I think it's a legitimate question that needs to be investigated and answered. To understand exactly how this originated is critical knowledge for preventing this from happening in the future."[105] Washington Post's article and subsequent broadcasts drew criticism from virologist Angela Rasmussen of Columbia University, which she states "It's irresponsible for political reporters like Rogin [to] uncritically regurgitate a secret 'cable' without asking a single virologist or ecologist or making any attempt to understand the scientific context."[43] Rasmussen later compared biosafety procedure concerns to "having the health inspector come to your restaurant. It could just be, ‘Oh, you need to keep your chemical showers better stocked.’ It doesn’t suggest, however, that there are tremendous problems.”[106]
Days later, multiple media outlets confirmed that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that the virus started in the WIV.[107][108][109][110] On April 23, Vox presented disputed arguments on lab leakage claims from several scientists.[111] Scientists suggested that virus samples cultured in the lab have significant amount of difference compare to SARS-CoV-2. The virus institution sampled RaTG13 in Yunnan, the closest known relative of the novel coronavirus with 96% shared genome. Edward Holmes, SARS-CoV-2 researcher at the University of Sydney, explained 4% of difference "is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change."[111][112] Virologist Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which studies emerging infectious diseases, noted the estimation that 1–7 million people in Southeast Asia who live or work in proximity to bats are infected each year with bat coronaviruses. In the interview with Vox, he comments, "There are probably half a dozen people that do work in those labs. So let's compare 1 million to 7 million people a year to half a dozen people; it's just not logical."[94][111]
On April 30, The New York Times reported the Trump administration demanded intelligence agencies to find evidence linking WIV with the origin of SARS-Cov-2. Secretary of State and former Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A) director Mike Pompeo was reportedly leading the push on finding information regarding the virus origin. Analysts were concerned that pressure from senior officials could distort assessments from the intelligence community. Anthony Ruggiero, the head of the National Security Council which responsible for tracking weapons of mass destruction, expressed frustration during a video conference that C.I.A. was unable to form conclusive answer on the origin of the virus. According to current and former government officials, as of April 30, C.I.A has yet to gather any information beyond circumstantial evidence to bolster the lab theory.[113][114] US intelligence officers suggested that Chinese officials tried to conceal the severity of the outbreak in early days, but no evidence had shown China attempted to cover up a lab accident.[115] One day later, Trump claimed he has evidence of the lab theory, but offers no further details on it.[116][117] Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, claimed the SARS-CoV-2 virus "likely" came from a Wuhan virology testing laboratory, based on "circumstantial evidence". He was quoted as saying, "I have no definitive way of proving this thesis."[118]
On April 30, 2020, the U.S. intelligence and scientific communities issued a public statement dismissing the idea that the virus was not natural, while the investigation of the lab accident theory was ongoing.[119][120] The White House suggested an alternative explanation, along with a seemingly contradictory message, that the virus was man-made. In an interview with ABC News, Secretary of State Pompeo said he has no reason to disbelieve the intelligence community that the virus was natural. However, this contradicted the comment he made earlier in the same interview, in which he said "the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point."[121][122][123] On May 4, Australian tabloid The Daily Telegraph claimed a reportedly leaked dossier from Five Eyes, which alleged the probable outbreak was from the Wuhan lab.[124] Fox News and national security commentators in the US quickly followed up The Telegraph story,[125][126] rising the tension within international intelligence community.[127] Australian government, which is part of the Five Eyes nations, determined the leaked dossier was not a Five Eyes document, but a compilation of open-source materials that contained no information generated by intelligence gathering.[128] German intelligence community denied the claim of the leaked dossier, instead supported the probability of a natural cause.[129][130] Australian government sees the promotion of the lab theory from the United States counterproductive to Australia’s push for a more broad international-supported independent inquiry into the virus origins.[127] Senior officials in Australian government speculated the dossier was leaked by US embassy in Canberra to promote a narrative in Australia media that diverged from the mainstream belief of Australia.[127][128][125]
Beijing rejected the White House's claim, calling the claim "part of an election year strategy by President Donald Trump’s Republican Party".[131] Hua Chunying, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, urged Mike Pompeo to present evidence for his claim. "Mr. Pompeo cannot present any evidence because he does not have any," Hua told a journalist during a regular briefing, "This matter should be handled by scientists and professionals instead of politicians out of their domestic political needs."[131][132] The Chinese ambassador, in an opinion published in the Washington Post, called on the White House to end the "blame game" over the coronavirus.[133][134] As of May 5, assessments and internal sources from the Five Eyes nations indicated that the coronavirus outbreak was the result of a laboratory accident was "highly unlikely", since the human infection was "highly likely" a result of natural human and animal interaction. However, to reach such a conclusion with total certainty would still require greater cooperation and transparency from the Chinese side.[135]
Anti-Israeli and antisemitic
Further information: Antisemitic canard
Iran's Press TV asserted that "Zionist elements developed a deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran".[14] Similarly, various Arab media outlets accused Israel and the United States of creating and spreading COVID-19, avian flu, and SARS.[136] Users on social media offered a variety of theories, including the supposition that Jews had manufactured COVID-19 to precipitate a global stock market collapse and thereby profit via insider trading,[137] while a guest on Turkish television posited a more ambitious scenario in which Jews and Zionists had created COVID-19, avian flu, and Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever to "design the world, seize countries, [and] neuter the world's population".[138]
Israeli attempts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine prompted mixed reactions. Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi denied initial reports that he had ruled that a Zionist-made vaccine would be halal,[139] and one Press TV journalist tweeted that "I'd rather take my chances with the virus than consume an Israeli vaccine".[140] A columnist for the Turkish Yeni Akit asserted that such a vaccine could be a ruse to carry out mass sterilization.[141]
An alert by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the possible threat of far-right extremists intentionally spreading the coronavirus mentioned blame being assigned to Jews and Jewish leaders for causing the pandemic and several statewide shutdowns.[142]
Anti-Muslim
Further information: 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi
In India, Muslims have been blamed for spreading infection following the emergence of cases linked to a Tablighi Jamaat religious gathering.[143] There are reports of vilification of Muslims on social media and attacks on individuals in India.[144] Claims have been made Muslims are selling food contaminated with coronavirus and that a mosque in Patna was sheltering people from Italy and Iran.[145] These claims were shown to be false.[146] In the UK, there are reports of far-right groups blaming Muslims for the coronavirus outbreak and falsely claiming that mosques remained open after the national ban on large gatherings.[147]
Bioengineered virus
It has been repeatedly claimed that the virus was deliberately created by humans.
Nature Medicine published an article arguing against the conspiracy theory that the virus was created artificially. The high-affinity binding of its peplomers to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) was shown to be "most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise".[148] In case of genetic manipulation, one of the several reverse-genetic systems for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used, while the genetic data irrefutably showed that the virus is not derived from a previously used virus template.[148] The overall molecular structure of the virus was found to be distinct from the known coronaviruses and most closely resembles that of viruses of bats and pangolins that were little studied and never known to harm humans.[149]
In February 2020, the Financial Times quoted virus expert and global co-lead coronavirus investigator Trevor Bedford: "There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find", and "The evidence we have is that the mutations [in the virus] are completely consistent with natural evolution".[150] Bedford further explained, "The most likely scenario, based on genetic analysis, was that the virus was transmitted by a bat to another mammal between 20–70 years ago. This intermediary animal—not yet identified—passed it on to its first human host in the city of Wuhan in late November or early December 2019".[150]
On February 19, 2020, The Lancet published a letter of a group of scientists condemning "conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin".[151]
Chinese biological weapon
India
Amidst a rise in Sinophobia, there have been conspiracy theories reported on India's social networks that the virus is "a bioweapon that went rogue" and also fake videos alleging that Chinese authorities are killing citizens to prevent its spread.[152]
Ukraine
According to the Kyiv Post, two common conspiracy theories online in Ukraine are that American author Dean Koontz predicted the pandemic in his 1981 novel The Eyes of Darkness, and that the coronavirus is a bioweapon leaked from a secret lab in Wuhan.[153]
United Kingdom
Tobias Ellwood said, "It would be irresponsible to suggest the source of this outbreak was an error in a Chinese military biological weapons programme ... But without greater Chinese transparency we cannot entirely completely sure."[154]
In February, Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, chair of the Defence Select Committee of the UK House of Commons, publicly questioned the role of the Chinese Army's Wuhan Institute for Biological Products and called for the "greater transparency over the origins of the coronavirus".[154][non-primary source needed] The Daily Mail reported in early April 2020 that a member of COBRA (an ad-hoc government committee tasked with advising on crises[citation needed]) has stated while government intelligence does not dispute that the virus has a zoonotic origin, it also does not discount the idea of a leak from a Wuhan laboratory, saying "Perhaps it is no coincidence that there is that laboratory in Wuhan"; the Asia Times reported the story as if it were factual,[155] perhaps unaware of the reputation of the Daily Mail.
United States
Further information: Cyberwarfare in the United States and Propaganda in the United States
In January 2020, BBC News published an article about coronavirus misinformation, citing two January 24 articles from The Washington Times that said the virus was part of a Chinese biological weapons program, based at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).[1] The Washington Post later published an article debunking the conspiracy theory, citing U.S. experts who explained why the WIV was unsuitable for bioweapon research, that most countries had abandoned bioweapons as fruitless, and that there was no evidence the virus was genetically engineered.[156]
On January 29, financial news website and blog ZeroHedge suggested without evidence that a scientist at the WIV created the COVID-19 strain responsible for the coronavirus outbreak. Zerohedge listed the full contact details of the scientist supposedly responsible, a practice known as doxing, by including the scientist's name, photo, and phone number, suggesting to readers that they "pay [the Chinese scientist] a visit" if they wanted to know "what really caused the coronavirus pandemic".[157] Twitter later permanently suspended the blog's account for violating its platform-manipulation policy.[158]
Logo of the fictional Umbrella Corporation, which some internet rumours linked to the pandemic. The corporation was invented for the Resident Evil game series.
In January 2020, Buzzfeed News reported on an internet meme of a link between the logo of the WIV and "Umbrella Corporation", the agency that created the virus responsible for a zombie apocalypse in the Resident Evil franchise. Posts online noted that "Racoon [sic]" (the main city in Resident Evil) was an anagram of "Corona".[159] Snopes noted that the logo was not from the WIV, but a company named Shanghai Ruilan Bao Hu San Biotech Ltd (located some 500 miles (800 km) away in Shanghai), and that the correct name of the city in Resident Evil was "Raccoon City".[159]
In February 2020, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) suggested the virus may have originated in a Chinese bioweapon laboratory.[160] Francis Boyle, a law professor, also expressed support for the bioweapon theory suggesting it was the result of unintended leaks.[161] Cotton elaborated on Twitter that his opinion was only one of "at least four hypotheses". Multiple medical experts have indicated there is no evidence for these claims.[162] Conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh said on The Rush Limbaugh Show—the most popular radio show in the U.S.—that the virus was probably "a ChiCom laboratory experiment" and the Chinese government was using the virus and the media hysteria surrounding it to bring down Donald Trump.[163][164]
On February 6, the White House asked scientists and medical researchers to rapidly investigate the origins of the virus both to address the current spread and "to inform future outbreak preparation and better understand animal/human and environmental transmission aspects of coronaviruses".[165] American magazine Foreign Policy said Xi Jinping's "political agenda may turn out to be a root cause of the epidemic" and that his Belt and Road Initiative has "made it possible for a local disease to become a global menace".[90]
The Inverse reported that "Christopher Bouzy, the founder of Bot Sentinel, conducted a Twitter analysis for Inverse and found [online] bots and trollbots are making an array of false claims. These bots are claiming China intentionally created the virus, that it's a biological weapon, that Democrats are overstating the threat to hurt Donald Trump and more. While we can't confirm the origin of these bots, they are decidedly pro-Trump."[166]
Conservative commentator Josh Bernstein claimed that the Democratic Party and the "medical deep state" were collaborating with the Chinese government to create and release the coronavirus to bring down Donald Trump. Bernstein went on to suggest those responsible should be locked in a room with infected coronavirus patients as punishment.[167][168]
Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, promoted a conspiracy theory on Fox News that North Korea and China conspired together to create the coronavirus.[169] He also said people were overreacting to the coronavirus outbreak and that Democrats were trying to use the situation to harm President Trump.[170]
Hospital ship attack
The hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) deployed to the Port of Los Angeles to provide backup medical services for the region. On March 31, 2020, a Pacific Harbor Line freight train was deliberately derailed by its onboard engineer in an attempt to crash into the ship, but the attack was unsuccessful and no one was injured.[171][172] According to U.S. federal prosecutors, the train's engineer "[...] was suspicious of the Mercy, believing it had an alternate purpose related to COVID-19 or a government takeover".[173]
Population control scheme
See also: List of conspiracy theories § RFID chips
According to the BBC, Jordan Sather, a conspiracy theory YouTuber supporting the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory and the anti-vax movement, has falsely claimed the outbreak was a population control scheme created by Pirbright Institute in England and by former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. This belief is held mostly by right-wing libertarians, NWO conspiracy theorists, and Christian Fundamentalists.[1][174]
Spy operation
Some people have alleged that the coronavirus was stolen from a Canadian virus research lab by Chinese scientists. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada said that conspiracy theory had "no factual basis".[175] The stories seem to have been derived[176] from a July 2019 news article[177] stating that some Chinese researchers had their security access to a Canadian Level 4 virology facility revoked in a federal police investigation; Canadian officials described this as an administrative matter and "there is absolutely no risk to the Canadian public."[177]
This article was published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC);[176] responding to the conspiracy theories, the CBC later stated that "CBC reporting never claimed the two scientists were spies, or that they brought any version of the coronavirus to the lab in Wuhan". While pathogen samples were transferred from the lab in Winnipeg, Canada to Beijing, China, on March 31, 2019, neither of the samples was a coronavirus, the Public Health Agency of Canada says the shipment conformed to all federal policies, and there has not been any statement that the researchers under investigation were responsible for sending the shipment. The current location of the researchers under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not being released.[175][178][179]
In the midst of the coronavirus epidemic, a senior research associate and expert in biological warfare with the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, referring to a NATO press conference, identified suspicions of espionage as the reason behind the expulsions from the lab, but made no suggestion that coronavirus was taken from the Canadian lab or that it is the result of bioweapons defense research in China.[180]
U.S. biological weapon
Arab world
According to Washington DC-based nonprofit Middle East Media Research Institute, numerous writers in the Arabic press have promoted the conspiracy theory that COVID-19, as well as SARS and the swine flu virus, were deliberately created and spread to sell vaccines against these diseases, and it is "part of an economic and psychological war waged by the U.S. against China with the aim of weakening it and presenting it as a backward country and a source of diseases".[181] Iraqi political analyst Sabah Al-Akili on Al-Etejah TV, Saudi daily Al-Watan writer Sa'ud Al-Shehry, Syrian daily Al-Thawra columnist Hussein Saqer, and Egyptian journalist Ahmad Rif'at on Egyptian news website Vetogate, were some examples given by MEMRI as propagators of the U.S. biowarfare conspiracy theory in the Arabic world.[181]
China
Further information: Cyberwarfare by China, Propaganda in China, and Chinese information operations and information warfare
The Xinhua News Agency is among the news outlets that have published false information about COVID-19's origins.
According to London-based The Economist, plenty of conspiracy theories exist on China's internet about COVID-19 being the CIA's creation to keep China down.[182] NBC News however has noted that there have also been debunking efforts of U.S.-related conspiracy theories posted online, with a WeChat search of "Coronavirus is from the U.S." reported to mostly yield articles explaining why such claims are unreasonable.[183] According to an investigation by ProPublica, such conspiracy theories and disinformation have been propagated under the direction of China News Service, the country's second largest government-owned media outlet controlled by the United Front Work Department.[184] Global Times and Xinhua News Agency have similarly been implicated in propagating disinformation related to COVID-19's origins.[185][186]
Multiple conspiracy articles in Chinese from the SARS era resurfaced during the outbreak with altered details, claiming SARS is biological warfare. Some said BGI Group from China sold genetic information of the Chinese people to the U.S., which then specifically targeted the genome of Chinese individuals.[187]
On January 26, Chinese military enthusiast website Xilu published an article, claimed how the U.S. artificially combined the virus to "precisely target Chinese people".[188][189] The article was removed in early February. The article was further distorted on social media in Taiwan, which claimed "Top Chinese military website admitted novel coronavirus was Chinese-made bio-weapons".[190] Taiwan Fact-check center debunked the original article and its divergence, suggesting the original Xilu article distorted the conclusion from a legitimate research on Chinese scientific magazine Science China Life Sciences, which never mentioned the virus was engineered.[190] The fact-check center explained Xilu is a military enthusiastic tabloid established by a private company, thus it doesn't represent the voice of Chinese military.[190]
Some articles on popular sites in China have also cast suspicion on U.S. military athletes participating in the Wuhan 2019 Military World Games, which lasted until the end of October 2019, and have suggested they deployed the virus. They claim the inattentive attitude and disproportionately below-average results of American athletes in the games indicate they might have been there for other purposes and they might actually be bio-warfare operatives. Such posts stated that their place of residence during their stay in Wuhan was also close to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where the first known cluster of cases occurred.[191]
In March 2020, this conspiracy theory was endorsed by Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China.[192][193][194][195] On March 13, the U.S. government summoned Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai to Washington over the coronavirus conspiracy theory.[196] Over the next month, conspiracy theorists narrowed their focus to one U.S. Army Reservist, a woman who participated in the games in Wuhan as a cyclist, claiming she is "patient zero". According to a CNN report, these theories have been spread by George Webb, who has nearly 100,000 followers on YouTube, and have been amplified by a report by CPC-owned newspaper Global Times.[197][198]
Iran
Further information: Propaganda in Iran
Reza Malekzadeh, deputy health minister, rejected bioterrorism theories.
According to Radio Farda, Iranian cleric Seyyed Mohammad Saeedi accused U.S. President Donald Trump of targeting Qom with coronavirus "to damage its culture and honor". Saeedi claimed that Trump is fulfilling his promise to hit Iranian cultural sites, if Iranians took revenge for the airstrike that killed of Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani.[199]
Iranian TV personality Ali Akbar Raefipour claimed the coronavirus was part of a "hybrid warfare" programme waged by the United States on Iran and China.[200] Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, head of Iranian Civil Defense Organization, claimed the coronavirus is likely a biological attack on China and Iran with economic goals.[201][202]
Hossein Salami, the head of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed the coronavirus outbreak in Iran may be due to a U.S. "biological attack".[203] Several Iranian politicians, including Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Rasoul Falahati, Alireza Panahian, Abolfazl Hasanbeigi and Gholamali Jafarzadeh Imanabadi, also made similar remarks.[204] Iranian Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made similar suggestions.[205]
Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to the United Nations on March 9, claiming that "it is clear to the world that the mutated coronavirus was produced in lab" and that COVID-19 is "a new weapon for establishing and/or maintaining political and economic upper hand in the global arena".[206]
The late[207] Ayatollah Hashem Bathaie Golpayegani claimed that "America is the source of coronavirus, because America went head to head with China and realised it cannot keep up with it economically or militarily."[208]
Reza Malekzadeh, Iran's deputy health minister and former Minister of Health, rejected claims that the virus was a biological weapon, pointing out that the U.S. would be suffering heavily from it. He said Iran was hard-hit because its close ties to China and reluctance to cut air ties introduced the virus, and because early cases had been mistaken for influenza.[205]
Philippines
In the Philippine Senate, Tito Sotto has promoted his belief that COVID-19 is a bioweapon.
A Filipino Senator, Tito Sotto, played a bioweapon conspiracy video in a February 2020 Senate hearing, suggesting the coronavirus is biowarfare waged against China.[209][210]
Russia
Further information: Cyberwarfare by Russia and Propaganda in the Russian Federation
On February 22, U.S. officials alleged that Russia is behind an ongoing disinformation campaign, using thousands of social media accounts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to deliberately promote unfounded conspiracy theories, claiming the virus is a biological weapon manufactured by the CIA and the U.S. is waging economic war on China using the virus.[211][12][212] The acting assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, Philip Reeker, said "Russia's intent is to sow discord and undermine U.S. institutions and alliances from within" and "by spreading disinformation about coronavirus, Russian malign actors are once again choosing to threaten public safety by distracting from the global health response."[211] Russia denies the allegation, saying "this is a deliberately false story".[213]
According to U.S.-based The National Interest magazine, although official Russian channels had been muted on pushing the U.S. biowarfare conspiracy theory, other Russian media elements do not share the Kremlin's restraint.[214] Zvezda, a news outlet funded by the Russian Defense Ministry, published an article titled "Coronavirus: American biological warfare against Russia and China", claiming that the virus is intended to damage the Chinese economy, weakening its hand in the next round of trade negotiations.[214] Ultra-nationalist politician and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, claimed on a Moscow radio station that the virus was an experiment by the Pentagon and pharmaceutical companies. Politician Igor Nikulin made rounds on Russian television and news media, arguing that Wuhan was chosen for the attack because the presence of a BSL-4 virus lab provided a cover story for the Pentagon and CIA about a Chinese bio-experiment leak.[214] An EU-document claims 80 attempts by Russian media to spread disinformation related to the epidemic.[215]
According to the East StratCom Task Force, the Sputnik news agency was active publishing stories speculating that the virus could've been invented in Latvia, that it was used by Communist Party of China to curb protests in Hong Kong, that it was introduced intentionally to reduce the number of elder people in Italy, that it was targeted against the Yellow Vests movement, and making many other speculations. Sputnik branches in countries including Armenia, Belarus, Spain, and in the Middle East came up with versions of these stories.[216]
Venezuela
Constituent Assembly member Elvis Méndez declared that the coronavirus was a "bacteriological sickness created in '89, in '90 and historically" and that it was a sickness "inoculated by the gringos". Méndez theorized that the virus was a weapon against Latin America and China and that its purpose was "to demoralize the person, to weaken to install their system".[217]
COVID-19 recovery
It has been wrongly claimed that anyone infected with COVID-19 will have the virus in their bodies for life. While there is no curative treatment, infected individuals can recover from the disease, eliminating the virus from their bodies; getting supportive medical care early can help.[279]
COVID-19 xenophobic blaming by ethnicity and religion
Main article: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
File:IOM - Fighting Stigma and Discrimination against Migrants during COVID-19.webm
UN video warns that misinformation against groups may lower testing rates and increase transmission.
COVID-19-related xenophobic attacks have been made against people the attacker blamed for COVID-19 on the basis of their ethnicity. People who are considered to look Chinese have been subjected to COVID-19-related verbal and physical attacks in many other countries, often by people accusing them of transmitting the virus.[281][282][283] Within China, there has been discrimination (such as evictions and non-service in shops) against people from anywhere closer to Wuhan (where the pandemic started) and against anyone perceived as being non-Chinese (especially those considered African), as the Chinese government has blamed continuing cases on re-introductions of the virus from abroad (90% of reintroduced cases were by Chinese passport-holders). Neighbouring countries have also discriminated against people seen as Westerners.[284][285][286] People have also simply blamed other local groups along the lines of pre-existing social tensions and divisions, sometimes citing reporting of COVID-19 cases within that group. For instance, Muslims have been widely blamed, shunned, and discriminated against in India (including some violent attacks), amid unfounded claims that Muslims are deliberately spreading COVID-19, and a Muslim event at which the disease did spread has received far more public attention than many similar events run by other groups and the government.[287] White supremacist groups have blamed COVID-19 on non-whites and advocated deliberately infecting minorities they dislike, such as Jews.[288]
False causes
5G
5G towers have been burned by people wrongly blaming them for COVID-19.
Openreach engineers appealed on anti-5G Facebook groups, saying they aren't involved in mobile networks, and workplace abuse is making it difficult for them to maintain phonelines and broadband.
This article is part of a series on
Alternative and pseudo‑medicine
Outline-body-aura.svg
General information[show]
Fringe medicine and science[show]
Conspiracy theories[hide]
Anti-fluoridation/Water fluoridation movement Anti-vaccination Vaccines causing autism Big Pharma conspiracy theory COVID-19 pandemic GMO conspiracy theories HIV/AIDS denialism Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories OPV AIDS hypothesis
Classifications[show]
Traditional medicine[show]
Diagnoses[show]
vte
In February 2020 BBC News reported that conspiracy theorists on social media groups alleged a link between coronavirus and 5G mobile networks, claiming that Wuhan and Diamond Princess outbreaks were directly caused by electromagnetic fields and by the introduction of 5G and wireless technologies. Some conspiracy theorists also alleged that the coronavirus outbreak was a cover-up for a 5G-related illness.[33] In March 2020, Thomas Cowan, a holistic medical practitioner who trained as a physician and operates on probation with Medical Board of California, alleged that coronavirus is caused by 5G, based on the claims that African countries were not affected significantly by the pandemic and Africa was not a 5G region.[289][290] Cowan also falsely alleged that the viruses were wastes from cells that are poisoned by electromagnetic fields and historical viral pandemics coincided with the major developments in radio technology.[290] The video of his claims went viral and was recirculated by celebrities including Woody Harrelson, John Cusack, and singer Keri Hilson.[291] The claims may also have been recirculated by an alleged "coordinated disinformation campaign", similar to campaigns used by the Internet Research Agency in Saint Petersburg, Russia.[292] The claims were criticized on social media and debunked by Reuters,[293] USA Today,[294] Full Fact[295] and American Public Health Association executive director Georges C. Benjamin.[289][296]
Professor Steve Powis, national medical director of NHS England, described theories linking 5G mobile phone networks to COVID-19 as the "worst kind of fake news".[297] Viruses cannot be transmitted by radio waves. COVID-19 has spread and continues to spread in many countries that do not have 5G networks.[279]
After telecommunications masts in several parts of the United Kingdom were the subject of arson attacks, British Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said the theory that COVID-19 virus may be spread by 5G wireless communication is "just nonsense, dangerous nonsense as well".[298] Vodafone announced that two Vodafone masts and two it shares with O2 had been targeted.[299][300]
By Monday April 6, 2020 at least 20 mobile phone masts in the UK had been vandalised since the previous Thursday.[301] Because of slow rollout of 5G in the UK, many of the damaged masts had only 3G and 4G equipment.[301] Mobile phone and home broadband operators estimated there were at least 30 incidents of confronting engineers maintaining equipment in the week up to April 6.[301] There have been eleven incidents of attempted arson at mobile phone masts in the Netherlands, including one case where "Fuck 5G" was written, as well as in Ireland and Cyprus.[302][303] Facebook has deleted multiple messages encouraging attacks on 5G equipment.[301]
Engineers working for Openreach posted pleas on anti-5G Facebook groups asking to be spared abuse as they are not involved with maintaining mobile networks.[304] Mobile UK said the incidents were affecting attempts to maintain networks that support home working and provide critical connections to vulnerable customers, emergency services and hospitals.[304] A widely circulated video shows people working for broadband company Community Fibre being abused by a woman who accuses them of installing 5G as part of a plan to kill the population.[304]
YouTube announced that it would reduce the amount of content claiming links between 5G and coronavirus.[299] Videos that are conspiratorial about 5G that do not mention coronavirus would not be removed, though they might be considered "borderline content", removed from search recommendations and losing advertising revenue.[299] The discredited claims had been circulated by British conspiracy theorist David Icke in videos (subsequently removed) on YouTube and Vimeo, and an interview by London Live TV network, prompting calls for action by Ofcom.[305][306]
On April 13, 2020, Gardaí were investigating fires at 5G masts in County Donegal, Ireland.[307] Gardaí and fire services had attended the fires the previous night in an attempt to put them out.[307] Although Gardaí were awaiting results of tests they were treating the fires as deliberate.[307]
There were 20 suspected arson attacks on phone masts in the UK over the Easter 2020 weekend.[297] These included an incident in Dagenham where three men were arrested on suspicion of arson, a fire in Huddersfield that affected a mast used by emergency services and a fire in a mast that provides mobile connectivity to the NHS Nightingale Hospital Birmingham.[297]
Ofcom issued guidance to ITV following comments by Eamonn Holmes after comments made by Holmes about 5G and coronavirus on This Morning.[308] Ofcom said the comments were "ambiguous" and "ill-judged" and they "risked undermining viewers' trust in advice from public authorities and scientific evidence".[308] Ofcom also local channel London Live in breach of standards for an interview it had with David Icke who it said had " expressed views which had the potential to cause significant harm to viewers in London during the pandemic".[308]
Some telecoms engineers have reported threats of violence, including threats to stab and murder them, by individuals who believe them to be working on 5G networks.[309] West Midlands Police said the crimes in question are being taken very seriously.[309]
On April 24, 2020 The Guardian revealed that an evangelical pastor from Luton had provided the male voice on a recording blaming 5G for deaths caused by coronavirus.[310] Jonathon James claimed to have formerly headed the largest business-unit at Vodafone, but insiders at the company said that he was hired for a sales position in 2014 when 5G was not a priority for the company and that 5G would not have been part of his job.[310] He left the company after less than a year.[310]
Mosquitoes
It has been claimed that mosquitoes transmit coronavirus. There is no evidence that this is true; coronavirus spreads through small droplets of saliva and mucus.[279]
Petrol pumps
A warning claiming to be from the Australia Department of Health said coronavirus spreads through petrol pumps and that everyone should wear gloves when filling up petrol in their cars.[311]
Shoe-wearing
There were claims that wearing shoes at one's home was the reason behind the spread of the coronavirus in Italy.[312]
Resistance/susceptibility based on ethnicity
There have been claims that specific ethnicities are more or less vulnerable to COVID-19. COVID-19 is a new zoonotic disease, so no population has yet had the time to develop population immunity.[medical citation needed]
Beginning on February 11, reports, quickly spread via Facebook, implied that a Cameroonian student in China had been completely cured of the virus due to his African genetics. While a student was successfully treated, other media sources have noted that no evidence implies Africans are more resistant to the virus and labeled such claims as false information.[313] Kenyan Secretary of Health Mutahi Kagwe explicitly refuted rumors that "those with black skin cannot get coronavirus", while announcing Kenya's first case on March 13.[314] This myth was cited as a contributing factor in the disproportionately high rates of infection and death observed among African Americans.[315][316]
There have been claims of "Indian immunity": that the people of India have more immunity to the COVID-19 virus due to living conditions in India. This idea was deemed "absolute drivel" by Anand Krishnan, professor at the Centre for Community Medicine of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He said there was no population immunity to the COVID-19 virus yet, as it is new, and it is not even clear whether people who have recovered from COVID-19 will have lasting immunity, as this happens with some viruses but not with others.[317]
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed the virus was genetically targeted at Iranians by the U.S., and this is why it is seriously affecting Iran. He did not offer any evidence.[318][22]
Religious protection
A number of religious groups have claimed protection due to their faith, some refusing to stop large religious gatherings. In Israel, some Ultra-Orthodox Jews initially refused to close synagogues and religious seminaries and disregarded government restrictions because "The Torah protects and saves",[319] which resulted in an 8 times faster rate of infection among some groups.[320] The Tablighi Jamaat movement organised mass gatherings in Malaysia, India, and Pakistan whose participants believed that God will protect them resulted the biggest rise in COVID-19 cases in a number of countries.[321][29][322] In Iran, the head of Fatima Masumeh Shrine encouraged pilgrims to visit the shrine despite calls to close the shrine, saying that they "consider this holy shrine to be a place of healing."[323] In South Korea the River of Grace Community Church in Gyeonggi Province spread the virus after spraying salt water into their members' mouths in the belief that it would kill the virus,[324] while the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Daegu where a church leader claimed that no Shincheonji worshipers had caught the virus in February while hundreds died in Wuhan later caused in the biggest spread of the virus in the country.[325][326]
In Somalia, myths have spread claiming Muslims are immune to the virus.[327]
Unproven protective and aggravating factors
Vegetarian immunity
[icon]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (April 2020)
Claims that vegetarians are immune to coronavirus spread online in India, causing "#NoMeat_NoCoronaVirus" to trend on Twitter.[328][better source needed] Eating meat does not have an effect on COVID-19 spread, except for people near where animals are slaughtered, said Anand Krishnan.[329] Fisheries, Dairying and Animal Husbandry Minister Giriraj Singh said the rumour had significantly affected industry, with the price of a chicken falling to a third of pre-pandemic levels. He also described efforts to improve the hygiene of the meat supply chain.[330]
Efficacy of hand sanitiser, "antibacterial" soaps
Washing in soap and water for at least 20 seconds is the best way to clean hands. Second-best is a hand sanitizer that is at least 60% alcohol.[331]
Claims that hand sanitiser is merely "antibacterial not antiviral", and therefore ineffective against COVID-19, have spread widely on Twitter and other social networks. While the effectiveness of sanitiser depends on the specific ingredients, most hand sanitiser sold commercially inactivates SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.[332][333] Hand sanitizer is recommended against COVID-19,[279] though unlike soap, it is not effective against all types of germs.[334] Washing in soap and water for at least 20 seconds is recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the best way to clean hands in most situations. However, if soap and water are not available, a hand sanitizer that is at least 60% alcohol can be used instead, unless hands are visibly dirty or greasy.[331][335] The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration both recommend plain soap; there is no evidence that "antibacterial soaps" are any better, and limited evidence that they might be worse long-term.[336][337]
Alcohol (ethanol and poisonous methanol)
Contrary to some reports, drinking alcohol does not protect against COVID-19, and can increase health risks[279] (short term and long term). Drinking alcohol is ethanol; other alcohols, such as methanol, which causes methanol poisoning, are acutely poisonous, and may be present in badly-prepared alcoholic beverages.[338]
Iran has reported incidents of methanol poisoning, caused by the false belief that drinking alcohol would cure or protect against coronavirus;[339] alcohol is banned in Iran, and bootleg alcohol may contain methanol.[340] According to Iranian media in March 2020, nearly 300 people have died and more than a thousand have become ill due to methanol poisoning, while Associated Press gave figures of around 480 deaths with 2,850 others affected.[341] The number of deaths due to methanol poisoning in Iran reached over 700 by April.[342] Iranian social media had circulated a story from British tabloids that a British man and others had been cured of coronavirus with whiskey and honey,[339][343] which combined with the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers as disinfectants, led to the false belief that drinking high-proof alcohol can kill the virus.[339][340][341]
Similar incidents have occurred in Turkey, with 30 Turkmenistan citizens dying from methanol poisoning related to coronavirus cure claims.[344][345]
In Kenya, the Governor of Nairobi Mike Sonko has come under scrutiny for including small bottles of the cognac Hennessy in care packages, falsely claiming that alcohol serves as "throat sanitizer" and that, from research, it is believed that "alcohol plays a major role in killing the coronavirus."[346][347]
Cocaine
Cocaine does not protect against COVID-19. Several viral tweets purporting that snorting cocaine would sterilize one's nostrils of the coronavirus spread around Europe and Africa. In response, the French Ministry of Health released a public service announcement debunking this claim, saying "No, cocaine does NOT protect against COVID-19. It is an addictive drug that causes serious side effects and is harmful to people's health." The World Health Organisation also debunked the claim.[348]
Ibuprofen
A tweet from French health minister Olivier Véran, a bulletin from the French health ministry, and a small speculative study in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine raised concerns about ibuprofen worsening COVID-19, which spread extensively on social media. The European Medicines Agency[349] and the World Health Organization recommended COVID-19 patients keep taking ibuprofen as directed, citing lack of convincing evidence of any danger.[350]
Helicopter spraying
In some Asian countries, it has been claimed that one should stay at home on particular days when helicopters spray disinfectant over homes for killing off COVID-19; no such spraying is taking place.[351][352]
Cruise ships safety from infection
Main article: COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships
Claims by cruise-ship operators notwithstanding, there are many cases of coronaviruses in hot climates; some countries in the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf are severely affected.
In March 2020, the Miami New Times reported that managers at Norwegian Cruise Line had prepared a set of responses intended to convince wary customers to book cruises, including "blatantly false" claims that the coronavirus "can only survive in cold temperatures, so the Caribbean is a fantastic choice for your next cruise", that "[s]cientists and medical professionals have confirmed that the warm weather of the spring will be the end of the [c]oronavirus", and that the virus "cannot live in the amazingly warm and tropical temperatures that your cruise will be sailing to".[353]
Flu is seasonal (becoming less frequent in the summer) in some countries, but not in others. While it is possible that the COVID-19 coronavirus will also show some seasonality, it is not yet known.[354][355][356][medical citation needed] The COVID-19 coronavirus spread along international air travel routes, including to tropical locations.[357] Outbreaks on cruise ships, where an older population lives in close quarters, frequently touching surfaces which others have touched, were common.[358][359]
It seems that COVID-19 can be transmitted in all climates.[279] It has seriously affected many warm-climate countries. For instance, Dubai, with an year-round average daily high of 28.0 Celsius (82.3°F) and the airport said to have the world's most international traffic, has had thousands of cases.
Vaccine pre-existence
It was reported that multiple social media posts have promoted a conspiracy theory claiming the virus was known and that a vaccine was already available. PolitiFact and FactCheck.org noted that no vaccine currently exists for COVID-19. The patents cited by various social media posts reference existing patents for genetic sequences and vaccines for other strains of coronavirus such as the SARS coronavirus.[360][4] The WHO reported as of February 5, 2020, that amid news reports of "breakthrough" drugs being discovered to treat people infected with the virus, there were no known effective treatments;[361] this included antibiotics and herbal remedies not being useful.[362] Scientists are working to develop a vaccine, but as of March 18, 2020, no vaccine candidates have completed Phase II clinical trials.[citation needed]
Miscellaneous
Name of the disease
Social media posts and internet memes claimed that COVID-19 means "Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease 19", or similar, as supposedly the "19th virus to come out of China".[477] In fact, the WHO named the disease as follows: CO stands for corona, VI for virus, D for disease and 19 for when the outbreak was first identified (31 December 2019).[478]
Bat soup
Some media outlets, including Daily Mail and RT, as well as individuals, disseminated a video showing a Chinese woman eating a bat, falsely suggesting it was filmed in Wuhan and connecting it to the outbreak.[479][480] However, the widely circulated video contains unrelated footage of a Chinese travel vlogger, Wang Mengyun, eating bat soup in the island country of Palau in 2016.[479][480][481][482] Wang posted an apology on Weibo,[481][482] in which she said she had been abused and threatened,[481] and that she had only wanted to showcase Palauan cuisine.[481][482] The spread of misinformation about bat consumption has been characterized by xenophobic and racist sentiment toward Asians.[90][483][484] In contrast, scientists suggest the virus originated in bats and migrated into an intermediary host animal before infecting people.[90][485]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID...
After a Kurdish Iranian nuclear scientist was accused of spying for the Great Satan and executed, a group of Iranians held a rally in Brussels to protest the recent executions and to remember the victims of the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners.
The [expletive deleted] who is running for President of the United States tried to start the totally false rumor — « Many people are saying... » — that the killing of the scientist had something to do with Ms. Clinton’s emails. Shame on you, Drumpf!
Donald Trump has tapped into a dark part of the American psyche. This is his power base. Many Americans feel they are failing and falling behind. Globalization and technology have been changing our economic landscape for years and many now feel the effects. Recently, Pew conducted a survey which showed that White Americans who lack a college education are being hit the hardest. And it is this segment which supports Trump.
The problem, however, is that Trump can't really solve their problems: make America great again. His followers' devotion to him is without question. Anything else becomes heresy. In reality, the majority of economic indicators are in good shape. It seems that after the international follies of the Bush Administration, President Obama has gone to great lengths to make America great once again. The problems many are having are real. But the solution is in the details, not in Trump's grandiose pronouncements.
Donald Trump, is a false prophet. His power is born of ignorance. He knows it and unabashedly uses it for his own devices. If you use the Bible as the guide to your life, look at Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Trump is a hungry wolf and he is biting the life out of the very people who need help the most.
See all the posters from the Chamomile Tea Party! Digital high res downloads are free here. Other options are available. And join our Facebook group.
Also called the "Maytag Cathedral" on account of the design was stolen from a washing machine agitator...
My ex's uncle (Paul Ryan) was one of the leading architects on this project. His washing machine was a front-loader...
P.S. The church promotes their version of mind-laundering by running you through a reason-softener cycle and finally a 'spin' cycle before you leave... (But I find it appalling that in 2017 they still have different cycles for "whites" and "colors." They also have cycles for fallen-away Roman Catholics "heavy-duty" and gay Catholics "delicates".)
P.P.S. And I find it irksome that you have to deposit 80 quarters before they let you in.
P.P.P.S. According to FactCheck.org, the third and fourth paragraphs of this post -- the P.S. and P.P.S. -- are FAKE NEWS...
The Central Business District in Houston, Texas, USA.
Prior to the arrival of the Streetcar in Houston in the 1870, the area that is now the Central District of the city was the main residential area of the city.
While generally focused on the most prosperous areas of town, the Houston City Street Railway extended one line a full mile south of the centre of the city, making it the first streetcar network designed to spur residential development.
By the 1890s, new, larger local streetcar companies finally accumulated the capital necessary to begin constructing streetcar suburbs beyond the conventional boundaries of the city.
This led to the development and rapid growth of areas like the Houston Heights and Montrose Residential development subsequently moved out of the central business district; Quality Hill previously being Houston's first upscale neighbourhood was left virtually abandoned by the turn of the 20th century.
This spurred the redevelopment of the district into becoming the home to nine Fortune 500 corporations, 3,500 businesses, and approximately 150,000 workers. Major employers include Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, and United Airlines. It contains between 35% and 40% of the Class A office locations of the overall business districts in Houston
Information sources:
So my mother has been provoking some controversy in Turkey while we are trying to relax on our Ferragosto vacation in Lenola. One of her photos was posted on Twitter, and the caption stated that this was a "Turkish woman in the 1940's". The period was correct but the nationality wrong. I'm not sure what the controversy was really about, though fashion and clothes, obviously, play a strong role in our cultural identity.
For whatever reason, the fact-checking website, teyit.org, decided to discover the woman's true identity. The journalist reverse searched the photo until she found my family photos on Flickr, and I was asked to certify that my mom was not Turkish. I think the journalist enjoyed her discovery because she linked to many of my mother's photos on the website -- more than really necessary to debunk this little internet fable: teyit.org/fotografin-1940larda-bir-turk-kadini-gosterdigi...
The Republican Club will be screening 2000 Mules for their members this afternoon. Since overheard chatter here has on occasion opined on how good slaves had it before the Civil War, the occasional reference to how Donny is a figure second only to George Washington and what a nice young man that Tucker is I guess this is their target demographic. That would be old people who spend too much time in the sun and have only one source for news. Kool Aid will be served after the screening.
"2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by political commentator Dinesh D'Souza that falsely claims unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. D'Souza has a history of creating and spreading conspiracy theories.
The Associated Press (AP) reported that the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by conservative non-profit True the Vote. FactCheck.org found the film's "supposed evidence is speculative." National Public Radio (NPR) reported True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. The film presented a single unverified anonymous witness who said she saw people picking up what she "assumed" were payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. The film characterizes the alleged operation as "ballot trafficking" with "stash houses", but presents no evidence that ballots were illegally collected to be deposited in drop boxes."
“In 2012, D'Souza contributed $10,000 to the senate campaign of Wendy Long on behalf of himself and his wife, agreeing in writing to attribute that contribution as $5,000 from his wife and $5,000 from him. He directed two other people to give Long a total of $20,000 additional, which he agreed to reimburse, and later did. At the time, the Election Act limited campaign contributions to $5,000 from any individual to any one candidate. Two years later, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make the illegal campaign contribution. He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine. In 2018, D'Souza was issued a pardon by President Donald Trump.”
[Editor note: Apologies for this politically incorrect post, but it is presented here on Flickr to highlight the tireless conflict between Leo Frank's detractors and defenders, even more than a century after the case began. First Trigger Warning: Insensitive language is used in the below published retort to Professor Randy Blazak, Criminologist at Portland State University. Permission granted to republish this critique by the retorting author. This post is for informational purposes only. Second Trigger Warning: The following open letter was originally published on YouTube in the comments section and has been updated, it has some very impolite language, viewer discretion is advised. Sensitive people should not read forward. Apologies to anyone offended by the republishing of this updated (version 2.0) open letter retort to RB about the Frank case, but it is presented here to highlight the contentious and controversial battle over the facts of the Frank-Phagan affair. -- Leo Frank Case Flickr Curator]
An Open Letter to Criminology Professor Randy Blazak of Portland State University (Washington State) about his Leo Frank lynching video published on Aug 21, 2009 at YouTube.com
The Source of Randy Blazak's video on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg16BuvCEs
Dear Mr. Randy Blazak of Portland State University,
The Leo Frank case news report
www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/05/22/leo-...
you promote-posted from the Washington Post authored by Jacob Bogage suggests www.LeoFrank.info 'The Leo Frank Research Library', and -- through Jewish Daily Forward derivative links -- 'The American Mercury' www.theamericanmercury.org are posting "fakenews" research analysis about the murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank, but when I went to both of those alleged "disingenuous" websites, I learned a tremendous amount of factual information about the true crime from the primary source legal records and original 1913 newspaper account facsimiles (The Leo Frank Research Library offers almost all the Atlanta newspaper reports about the Frank-Phagan affair from April 1913 onward in PDF).
Many of the independent articles posted on these two websites give you direct links to the 1913 Leo Frank trial brief of evidence (300+ pages), 1914 Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court appeals records (1800+ pages) and the newspaper reports from the dailies (thousands of pages): Atlanta Georgian, Atlanta Journal and Atlanta Constitution (1913-1915 is where the highest concentration of reports appear).
Thus anyone can fact check claims about this notorious case and see whether or not these websites provide an accurate portrait of what was reported to have occurred, long ago. I was quite impressed by the scholarly Leo Frank case articles published on www.LeoFrank.org and www.LeoFrank.info and www.theamericanmercury.org since I have read every monograph on the criminal case available, and there is not a single book that even comes close to the breadth and accuracy of the information provided by the above said websites.
So my question to you is this: How do we reconcile the very well written, researched and scholarly articles published on The American Mercury, with people like you, Jacob Bogage, The Jewish Daily Forward, Abraham Foxman (ADL), Mark Potok (SPLC) and others who are suggesting these "disingenuous" websites promote false narratives?
I don't consider personal attacks or ad hominem arguments against the alleged authors of these websites as a legitimate reason as to why we shouldn't fact check and explore ideas or positions that we agree or disagree with. There are no opinions or consensuses above scrutiny, including mine and yours or clusters of pseudo-scholars and fakenews journalists.
Let me break it down for you Randy: no ideas, public statements, ideologies or arguments are above scrutiny, no matter the source. And absolutely all claims made about the Leo Frank case should inspire inquiry because of the contentious nature of the affair. No history is dogma above revisionism or factchecking for that matter.
I'm actually surprised you're a criminologist by training and a professor by trade, because most of the things you said in your Leo Frank Lynching video published on YouTube, do not stand up to minimum fact checking and I wrote the specific reasons why in a separate post in the comments area of your video. I'm now going to outline them here with more details, because my response on YouTube was shadow banned by either you, or the new ADL censors on YouTube. So get ready for the Barbara Streisand Effect.
Please try to be open minded about this case and actually learn the facts from the primary sources. Don't presume that just because some activist hack journalist or activist academics make agenda based claims that they are true. Be skeptical about everything you read from all sides of the case, prosecution or defense, and try doing some original research by looking into the sources of every claim that is made about the Frank-Phagan affair you hear, see or learn.
I fact checked everything you said in your video and you are patently incorrect on numerous fronts and I provide the evidence as to why I believe you are wrong. You got a lot of homework to do, because it's obvious you don't really understand what transpired in this criminal case at even a basic introductory level. Shame on you Professor Blazak for pushing obvious false history and fake news.
Things you should know, but don't #1:
Leo Frank was never officially absolved or exonerated regarding his August 25, 1913 conviction for the murder of Mary Phagan when he was given a posthumous pardon on March 11th, 1986. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles officially stated that they were not going to address Leo Frank's guilt or innocence when they gave him back his right to vote (Felons can't legally vote during State political elections in Georgia) some 71 years after he was hanged on August 17, 1915 for the April 26, 1913, strangulation-murder of Mary Phagan. I learned this fact that Leo Frank was not officially absolved or exonerated of the Mary Phagan murder from pro-Frank biased sources like Wikipedia, Steve Oney and also the Ben Loeterman docudrama called People vs. Leo Frank (they state so at the very end if I'm not mistaken). You can see the biased docudrama on YouTube, here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9fRs2xd890
You should know this because you claim he was/is innocent in your video, but the evidence is overwhelming of his guilt and his conviction was never overturned to date and I doubt anyone exonerate him when they learn Leo Frank changed his alibi on the witness stand and placed himself at the scene of the murder.
Since you're a criminologist, you really should read the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, and get your facts straight before spreading obvious falsehoods about his supposed "innocence".
Attempts for more than 100 years to have his conviction overturned have utterly failed between 1913 - 2017, maybe you should stop hiding behind racism and delve in a little deeper into why it would be an injustice to overturn his official status of guilty as charged. His coreligionists haven't given up and continue working behind the scenes even at this "late hour" a century later, still trying to subvert justice for Mary Phagan and get the Toilet-Strangler's conviction nullified.
Indisputable fact you should know #2:
Leo Frank's wife, Lucille Selig, refused to be buried next to her "Beloved Husband" (his inscription on his grave marker at Mount Carmel cemetery, Queens, NY). When she died April 23rd, 1957, her last will and testament (Registered in 1954 and present in the Georgia Archives) is evidence of this fact. I first learned the fact of this historical curiosity from Steve Oney that Lucille Selig wanted to be cremated and have her ashes spread in Atlanta (Oney, Georgia Magazine, March 2004). Oney learned about her post-passing aftermath in the early 1990s from Lucille Selig's nephew living on the West Coast of Florida. Oney talked about it in an article published in UGA's Georgia Magazine, March 2004, Features (the article is available online and you should consider reading it if you want the details). I contacted the Mount Carmel cemetery in Queens, NY, and verified that the grave left-adjacent to Leo Frank's grave is still empty. I think that empty grave sustains State Exhibit J, Magnolia "Mineola" McKnight's Affidavit, Signed and Notarized, June 3rd, 1913.
Indisputable fact you show know #3:
Leo Frank astoundingly changed his alibi on the witness stand during the final week of his trial, with an "unconscious" visit to the men's toilet in the metal room, and thus placed himself precisely at the prosecution's theory of where the scene of the crime had occurred and at the time when the prosecution proposed to the jury when the Phagan murder had likely happened. Leo Frank in soccer terminology shot an "own goal". Check out Leo Frank's "unconscious" visit to the men's toilet in his trial testimony (look in the leo frank trial brief of evidence, 1913) to explain why Monteen Stover found his office empty at the exact same time Frank formerly told police Mary Phagan was with him at his business office (See State Exhibit B and Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913).
The Ugly Racist Anti-Black Anti-Gentile Framing:
The ugliest part of this famous 20th century criminal case is that the racist Leo Frank tried to frame two of his black employees, first Newt Lee the Nightwatchman and then Jim Conley (the accessory after the fact). And the ugliness of this racist framing, continues even today a century later and you're a permanent part of that ugly racist history now. Congratulations on always playing the race-card against White people, but actually being a politically racist and hypocrite yourself.
So the natural follow-up question is this: When is this ugly racist framing against Black people going to end? or is it going to drag on forever, since it's been going on already for 104 years strong and counting. Why do you pretend to be an anti-racist leftist in real life (yes I watched all your anti-White ramblings on YouTube), but have no problem framing innocent black people for a crime where there is no evidence for their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Ponder this during your free time: Why do you feel comfortable framing a black man for the crime, one who actually helped the police learn the juicy details of what happened after the Toilet-Strangler raped and murdered his child laborer?
I want to get specific now because I went to the "disingenuous" Leo Frank Research Library at www.LeoFrank.info to fact check everything you said in your Leo Frank lynching video and you made a number of factually incorrect statements that need to be flushed out like the turd that won't flush.
1. At 14 seconds of your Leo Frank lynching video, you said Leo Frank was from Texas, but this statement is a little bit of a misrepresentation. Leo Frank was born in Cuero Texas April 17, 1884 and was moved from there when he was 3 months old (approximately July 1884) to Brooklyn, NY, and lived there, until he attended college at Cornell University during school terms in Ithaca, NY (September 1902- June 1906). So to say Leo Frank was from Texas, is a just a misnomer, he spent the first major part of his life in New York City from July 1884 to September 1902 and 4 years more upstate NY (Ithaca) during school terms. Leo Frank, living in Texas for 3 months during his 31 year long life span, does not make him from Texas. Brooklyn, NY was where he always called home and that was where he was raised and educated until he went off to college to study mechanical engineering in the same State. So from 1884 to 1906 he primarily lived in New York State, that's roughly 22 years of his 31 year life span. From 1908 to 1915 he lived in primarily Atlanta Georgia, or 7 years approximately. Other than some domestic vacations in the U.S., he made two transatlantic trips spending the summer of 1905 in Europe, and 9 months in Germany from late 1907 to August of 1908 apprenticing in pencil manufacturing. Compare that with 3 unmemorable goo-goo ga-ga baby months in Texas. So clearly to say he was from Texas shows a clear lack of understanding about his life and what geographic areas influenced him most significantly. Randy, do you remember anything from the first 3 months of your life on the outside from birth to 12 weeks later?!
2. At 19 seconds you suggest he was falsely accused of raping and strangling a 13-year-old girl in his employ. Leo Frank was only indicted for murder and tried for murder, not rape, but there was material medical forensic evidence testified about at the trial, indicating she had been "outraged" (raped) and Conley testified that Frank confessed to him that he wanted to be with her (have sex) and she refused (Conley's trial testimony, August 4, 1913).
You are entitled to believe whatever you want about his innocence or guilt, but who is more qualified to judge the merits of the trial, a regressive criminologist who literally doesn't even know the most elementary facts of the case and never read the trial brief of evidence, or some of the best legal minds in America at the time who could deliberate in their quiet and calm quarters? My point is this, you clearly didn't bother to learn anything even rudimentary about the affair, but act like an authoritative scholar.
In reality if he was falsely accused, why did the presiding judge Leonard Strickland Roan reject Leo Frank's appeal for a new trial on more than 100 grounds (100 is not a typo)! Why did the Georgia Supreme Court rule that the evidence presented at the trial of Leo Frank proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Why did every State appeals court reject -- in their majority and unanimous decisions -- his petitions including -- after his state appeals exhausted -- the Supreme Court of the United States? Why did the Governor of Georgia at the time, John Slaton, not pardon him in 1915, but merely gave him an equal punishment for the crime of murder at the time which was life in prison? I guess you didn't read Governor Slaton's 29-page commutation order of June 21, 1915, he never gives any indication he thought Leo Frank's trial was a sham or Leo Frank was innocent and Conley was guilty, quite the contrary, Slaton said he was sustaining the judge, jury and appeals courts in his final decision (you might want to actually read page 29 of the order). Why did the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles refuse to exonerate and absolve Leo Frank of the murder when they pardoned him in 1986? Why did Nathan Deal and the Georgia state congress in 2015 refuse to say Leo Frank was innocent when Rabbi Steven Lebow organized the Jewish community and several leading activist judges to petition the governor and congress of Georgia? There is a good video about it on YouTube by Eli Goodstein, titled "Leo Frank Doc Final Cut", published March 16, 2016. Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEIv8ZQ0MAc to see how the racist hate crime hoax of anti-Semitism is perpetuated about the trial for more than a century.
You're a criminologist by training and professor at Portland State University, so you might want to actually take a break from your echo chamber to look at the evidence from alternative points of view, like The American Mercury www.theamericanmercury.org and Leo Frank Research Library www.leofrank.info that actually publish with learned commentary info about the official Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court records and original MSM newspaper reports from 1913 Atlanta.
Most of the modern books written today about this case, if they are pro-Frank, intentionally leave out 99% of the incriminating evidence presented against Leo Frank at his trial, forcing students of the case to go back to the official records from 1913-1915 to learn what really happened.
3. Circa 26 seconds you claim there was clear evidence the Black janitor (maintenance worker) Jim Conley was the real culprit, but this is absolutely not true. There is scant evidence of his guilt, in fact it was Jim Conley who partly helped the police solve the murder. Don't you think falsely accusing a black man of a crime he didn't commit is a bit racist? If there was evidence Jim Conley helped Leo Frank murder Mary Phagan he would have been tried. Read the article by the American Mercury debunking the Alonzo Mann Hoax, it puts things into perspective and context too about Jim Conley's roll as the accessory-after-the-fact.
4. You accuse the South of being Anti-Semitic, this is a racist Anti-Gentile blood libel, the South was never Anti-Semitic taken as a whole, in fact the south is the exact opposite, very philo-semitic and has always been, with only minor exceptions and exceptions are not the rule. The highest concentration of Christian and Gentile Zionists can be found in the South, and the census data from 20th century, pre-1940 shows many Jews and Gentiles married (Ancestry.com). So you're statement about the South being anti-Semitic at the time is racist, bigoted, prejudiced, anti-Southern, Anti-White, Anti-Christian, Anti-Gentile and just flat out blood libel. All of this excepting Tom Watson, who obvious wrote some anti-Semitic statements about Leo Frank's Northern media supporters in his Watson's Magazine, January, March, August, September and October of 1915 (you should read them or listen to the free audio books of them online at The American Mercury, you might learn a thing or two from a seasoned attorney vastly more intelligent than you and more knowledgeable about the Frank case than the average hack criminology professor). Those ad hominem statements by one man doesn't make the entire South anti-Semitic. You're totally stereotyping the people of the South from 100 years ago based on the statements of one populist politician and it's totally false and racist that you're doing so. The population of Jews in the South has steadily risen over the decades, proving the broad claims of Southern anti-Semitism are nothing but ugly blood libel against the Southern peoples. This however does not exonerate the South of generally treating Black people as far below second class citizens.
5. At 58 seconds, you say the Governor John Slaton was convinced of Leo Frank's innocence. If Governor John Slaton was convinced of Leo Frank's innocence why didn't he pardon him? I guess you never read any of John Slaton's papers, because he absolutely never said once in his life Leo Frank was innocent in any direct quotes documented. You either made that up or just regurgitated the claim from one of Leo Frank's activist defenders.
Where you aware that Governor John Slaton was the law partner of Luther Rosser who represented Leo Frank at trial? Are you aware that Governor Slaton was part-owner of the Law firm that represented Leo Frank at his trial? Do you not see that as an illegal conflict of interest and betrayal of the Georgia and U.S. Constitution for the Governor to pardon his own law client!?!?
6. Circa 135 seconds you said half of 3,000 Jews who lived in Georgia fled the state, this is categorically false, the census data from 1910 and 1920 is now in the public domain (Ancestry.com), and the Jewish population actually increased between this time in Georgia, not decreased by half, so you are stating fake news and false history, like you do throughout most of your entire video. Half the Jews of Georgia did not leave the state during the decade between 1910 to 1920, you are promoting an ugly racist anti-Gentile smear.
7. Circa 141 if I heard you correctly, you said the 1915 lynching led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, this is fake news and fake history if you stated so. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith was founded 2 years earlier in October of 1913, and some Jewish sources claim that it was the conviction and death sentence of Leo Frank the B'nai B'rith president of Atlanta, is what galvanized the founding of the ADL by B'nai B'rith in 1913, NOT 1915.
8. Leo Frank wasn't lynched right where you were standing in the video, he was actually lynched about 300 feet in front of where you are facing in the video -- just for your own edification. In other words, the lynching historical marker is not the exact location or even "near" where the lynching happened.
Should we presume your PhD dissertation is also filled with academic dishonesty? Does your PhD dissertation need to be publicly fact checked and the results published on the Internet? Because you seem to have a real problem with the truth when it comes to criminology and you're a university professor charged with the task of educating students to boot!
Most of the facts you present in your Leo Frank Lynching video at 1200 Roswell Road are objectively misrepresentations, fake news, false history and show that you never actually did any real original research into this case, but just repeat what you read from hack journalists and fakenews historians.
My challenge to you is this:
Listen to the free 2015 audio book at The American Mercury, 'The Murder of Little Mary Phagan' by Mary Phagan-Kean the great niece (1989), read by Vanessa Neubauer (the entire audio book is available FREE) and also listen to the 'Leo Frank Trial' (which is now in the process of being released, in weekly segments) at the same website and by the same orator.
The American Mercury and Leo Frank Research Library have produced the best researched and scholarly articles about the Leo Frank case anywhere on the Internet, and you should try reading alternative sources of information, instead of basing your entire world view on the words of politically correct ivory tower of ignorance pseudo-scholars or from information that you learned via fake news journalists and false news historians, which you parrot like a Muppet in your video. You clearly don't have even a basic understanding of the case and you are originally from Atlanta and a criminologist by training, WOW!
And please be my guest and censor or delete my response to your video on YouTube, suppress the truths I have presented here, and I promise you this will be revised, upgraded, enhanced and posted on major discussion forums as a gargantuan long winded open letter. So be a coward if you want and ignore me, and censor me or delete me, but you obviously only know made-up anti-Gentile version of this famous criminal case and you are very obviously a neo-Marxist anti-White self-loathing professor from the interviews I have watch of you online. You have the right to be whatever you want, but it's obvious your biases make it impossible for you to be a genuine criminologist who seeks the truth.
I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on this case, but I can easily fact check what people claim and I too have come to learn I don't know everything about this affair either, but when I discover something I stated was wrong, I at least try to correct myself. What I have stated above is not the last word on anything either. I'm open to discussion, improving my understanding and willing to revise any statements that can be improved or not accurate.
However that being said, you just GOT FACT CHECKED and POWNED for objectively being a bona fide pseudo-scholar.
Best Regards.
Vincent Tucci, Brooklyn, NY
PS: I don't claim that any research is the last word on this case, but it's definitely inspiration for discussion. Here's some reading material handy for you Randy:
Leo Frank: The Coroner’s Inquest Into The Mary Phagan’s Murder Mystery, May, 1913
theamericanmercury.org/2015/08/leo-frank-the-coroners-inq...
100 Years Ago Today: The Trial of Leo Frank Begins, July 28, 1913.
theamericanmercury.org/2013/07/100-years-ago-today-the-tr...
The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week One
theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-one/
The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week Two
theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-two/
The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week Three
theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/the-leo-frank-trial-week-t...
One Hundred Years Ago Leo Frank Mounts the Witness Stand on August 18, 1913.
theamericanmercury.org/2013/08/100-years-ago-today-leo-fr...
The Summer of 1913 Leo Frank Trial Week Four
theamericanmercury.org/2013/09/the-leo-frank-trial-week-f...
Leo Frank Trial Closing Arguments, August, 1913: Luther Rosser, Reuben Arnold and Frank Hooper, 1913
theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/the-leo-frank-trial-closin...
Closing Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey at the Leo Frank Trial, August 22, 23, 25, 1913
theamericanmercury.org/2013/12/the-leo-frank-trial-closin...
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL): One Hundred Years of Jewish Hate, October 1913 – 2013
theamericanmercury.org/2013/10/adl-100-years-of-hate/
An Empty Grave in NYC: The Amazing Story of Mrs. Leo Frank, Lucille Selig (1888 - 1957).
theamericanmercury.org/2015/09/the-amazing-story-of-mrs-l...
Leo Frank Pardon (1982 - 1986): The Astounding Alonzo Mann Hoax and ADL-led Posthumous Pardon of Leo Frank
theamericanmercury.org/2015/09/the-astounding-alonzo-mann...
Leo Frank Case Analysis, Centennial of Mary Phagan Murder: One Hundred Arguments Why Leo Frank is Guilty
theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-fr...
Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies: Leonard Dinnerstein’s Pseudo-history About The Leo Frank Case
theamericanmercury.org/2012/10/the-leo-frank-case-a-pseud...
Review of Tabloid Style Journalist Steve Oney’s, 'And The Dead Shall Rise': Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?
theamericanmercury.org/2012/10/who-really-solved-the-mary...
New Audio Book: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan-Kean (1989), read by Vanessa Neubauer (2015)
theamericanmercury.org/2015/12/new-audio-book-the-murder-...
* * *
U.S. Senator From Georgia, Tom Watson, Five Part Series on The Leo Frank Case, 1915:
A Mercury Exclusive: Introduction to Tom Watson on the Leo Frank Case
theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/a-mercury-exclusive-tom-wa...
Tom Watson: The Leo Frank Case, January, 1915
theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/tom-watson-the-leo-frank-c...
Tom Watson: A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case, March, 1915
theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/tom-watson-a-full-review-o...
Tom Watson: The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank, August, 1915
theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/tom-watson-the-celebrated-...
Tom Watson: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, a Jew Pervert, September, 1915
theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/the-official-record-in-the...
Tom Watson: The Rich Jews Indict a State, October, 1915
theamericanmercury.org/2014/03/tom-watson-the-rich-jews-i...
* * *
Model:B Light
Who Runs The World? Solid Proof That A Core Group Of Wealthy Elitists Is Pulling The Strings
From:theeconomiccollapseblog.com
by:By Michael, on January 29th, 2013
Does a shadowy group of obscenely wealthy elitists control the world? Do men and women with enormous amounts of money really run the world from behind the scenes? The answer might surprise you. Most of us tend to think of money as a convenient way to conduct transactions, but the truth is that it also represents power and control. And today we live in a neo-fuedalist system in which the super rich pull all the strings. When I am talking about the ultra-wealthy, I am not just talking about people that have a few million dollars. As you will see later in this article, the ultra-wealthy have enough money sitting in offshore banks to buy all of the goods and services produced in the United States during the course of an entire year and still be able to pay off the entire U.S. national debt. That is an amount of money so large that it is almost incomprehensible. Under this ne0-feudalist system, all the rest of us are debt slaves, including our own governments. Just look around - everyone is drowning in debt, and all of that debt is making the ultra-wealthy even wealthier. But the ultra-wealthy don't just sit on all of that wealth. They use some of it to dominate the affairs of the nations. The ultra-wealthy own virtually every major bank and every major corporation on the planet. They use a vast network of secret societies, think tanks and charitable organizations to advance their agendas and to keep their members in line. They control how we view the world through their ownership of the media and their dominance over our education system. They fund the campaigns of most of our politicians and they exert a tremendous amount of influence over international organizations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. When you step back and take a look at the big picture, there is little doubt about who runs the world. It is just that most people don't want to admit the truth.
The ultra-wealthy don't run down and put their money in the local bank like you and I do. Instead, they tend to stash their assets in places where they won't be taxed such as the Cayman Islands. According to a report that was released last summer, the global elite have up to 32 TRILLION dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe.
U.S. GDP for 2011 was about 15 trillion dollars, and the U.S. national debt is sitting at about 16 trillion dollars, so you could add them both together and you still wouldn't hit 32 trillion dollars.
And of course that does not even count the money that is stashed in other locations that the study did not account for, and it does not count all of the wealth that the global elite have in hard assets such as real estate, precious metals, art, yachts, etc.
The global elite have really hoarded an incredible amount of wealth in these troubled times. The following is from an article on the Huffington Post website...
Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.
The study estimating the extent of global private financial wealth held in offshore accounts - excluding non-financial assets such as real estate, gold, yachts and racehorses - puts the sum at between $21 and $32 trillion.
The research was carried out for pressure group Tax Justice Network, which campaigns against tax havens, by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.
He used data from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and central banks.
But as I mentioned previously, the global elite just don't have a lot of money. They also basically own just about every major bank and every major corporation on the entire planet.
According to an outstanding NewScientist article, a study of more than 40,000 transnational corporations conducted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich discovered that a very small core group of huge banks and giant predator corporations dominate the entire global economic system...
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.
The researchers found that this core group consists of just 147 very tightly knit companies...
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
The following are the top 25 banks and corporations at the heart of this "super-entity". You will recognize many of the names on the list...
1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
11. Wellington Management Co LLP
12. Deutsche Bank AG
13. Franklin Resources Inc
14. Credit Suisse Group
15. Walton Enterprises LLC
16. Bank of New York Mellon Corp
17. Natixis
18. Goldman Sachs Group Inc
19. T Rowe Price Group Inc
20. Legg Mason Inc
21. Morgan Stanley
22. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc
23. Northern Trust Corporation
24. Société Générale
25. Bank of America Corporation
The ultra-wealthy elite often hide behind layers and layers of ownership, but the truth is that thanks to interlocking corporate relationships, the elite basically control almost every Fortune 500 corporation.
The amount of power and control that this gives them is hard to describe.
Unfortunately, this same group of people have been running things for a very long time. For example, New York City Mayor John F. Hylan said the following during a speech all the way back in 1922...
The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.
They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.
These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.
These international bankers created the central banks of the world (including the Federal Reserve), and they use those central banks to get the governments of the world ensnared in endless cycles of debt from which there is no escape. Government debt is a way to "legitimately" take money from all of us, transfer it to the government, and then transfer it into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.
Today, Barack Obama and almost all members of Congress absolutely refuse to criticize the Fed, but in the past there have been some brave members of Congress that have been willing to take a stand. For example, the following quote is from a speech that Congressman Louis T. McFadden delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 10, 1932...
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Sadly, most Americans still believe that the Federal Reserve is a "federal agency", but that is simply not correct. The following comes from factcheck.org...
The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.
According to researchers that have looked into the ownership of the big Wall Street banks that dominate the Fed, the same names keep coming up over and over: the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Lazards, the Schiffs and the royal families of Europe.
But ultra-wealthy international bankers have not just done this kind of thing in the United States. Their goal was to create a global financial system that they would dominate and control. Just check out what Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley once wrote...
[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.
Sadly, most Americans have never even heard of the Bank for International Settlements, but it is at the very heart of the global financial system. The following is from Wikipedia...
As an organization of central banks, the BIS seeks to make monetary policy more predictable and transparent among its 58 member central banks. While monetary policy is determined by each sovereign nation, it is subject to central and private banking scrutiny and potentially to speculation that affects foreign exchange rates and especially the fate of export economies. Failures to keep monetary policy in line with reality and make monetary reforms in time, preferably as a simultaneous policy among all 58 member banks and also involving the International Monetary Fund, have historically led to losses in the billions as banks try to maintain a policy using open market methods that have proven to be based on unrealistic assumptions.
The ultra-wealthy have also played a major role in establishing other important international institutions such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. In fact, the land for the United Nations headquarters in New York City was purchased and donated by John D. Rockefeller.
The international bankers are "internationalists" and they are very proud of that fact.
The elite also dominate the education system in the United States. Over the years, the Rockefeller Foundation and other elitist organizations have poured massive amounts of money into Ivy League schools. Today, Ivy League schools are considered to be the standard against which all other colleges and universities in America are measured, and the last four U.S. presidents were educated at Ivy League schools.
The elite also exert a tremendous amount of influence through various secret societies (Skull and Bones, the Freemasons, etc.), through some very powerful think tanks and social clubs (the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Grove, Chatham House, etc.), and through a vast network of charities and non-governmental organizations (the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, etc.).
But for a moment, I want to focus on the power the elite have over the media. In a previous article, I detailed how just six monolithic corporate giants control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. These giant corporations own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
Considering the fact that the average American watches 153 hours of television a month, the influence of these six giant corporations should not be underestimated. The following are just some of the media companies that these corporate giants own...
Time Warner
Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
Marie Claire
People Magazine
Walt Disney
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Disney Channel
SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books
Viacom
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1
News Corporation
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan
CBS Corporation
CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Universal
Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video
And of course the elite own most of our politicians as well. The following is a quote from journalist Lewis Lapham...
"The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the American president has become a privilege reserved to the country’s equestrian classes, a.k.a. the 20% of the population that holds 93% of the wealth, the happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports arenas."
Have you ever wondered why things never seem to change in Washington D.C. no matter who we vote for?
Well, it is because both parties are owned by the establishment.
It would be nice to think that the American people are in control of who runs things in the U.S., but that is not how it works in the real world.
In the real world, the politician that raises more money wins more than 80 percent of the time in national races.
Our politicians are not stupid - they are going to be very good to the people that can give them the giant piles of money that they need for their campaigns. And the people that can do that are the ultra-wealthy and the giant corporations that the ultra-wealthy control.
Are you starting to get the picture?
There is a reason why the ultra-wealthy are referred to as "the establishment". They have set up a system that greatly benefits them and that allows them to pull the strings.
So who runs the world?
They do. In fact, they even admit as much.
David Rockefeller wrote the following in his 2003 book entitled "Memoirs"...
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
There is so much more that could be said about all of this. In fact, an entire library of books could be written about the power and the influence of the ultra-wealthy international bankers that run the world.
But hopefully this is enough to at least get some conversations started.
So what do you think about all of this? Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below...
The vast majority of Britain's CCTV cameras are operating illegally or in breach of privacy guidelines, a new watchdog has warned.
London has 7.2 million residents and the UK has around 60 million, the country has at least 4,285,000 cameras, approximately one for every 14 people.
Up to 90 per cent of surveillance cameras may be breaching the Information Commissioner's code of practice laid down to stop cameras being used inappropriately. Even more seriously, a large proportion of the UK's 14.2 million cameras breach the Data Protection Act and so are illegal, the watchdog CameraWatch warned.
www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/factcheck+how+many...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=queM4c-W048
The United States is fast growing it's army of surveillance CCTV cameras.
Data: nodexlgraphgallery.org/Pages/Graph.aspx?graphID=765
Zoomable high resolution image: zoom.it/jV2X
The graph represents a network of 876 Twitter users whose recent tweets contained "ericfehrn". The network was obtained on Friday, 06 July 2012 at 04:18 UTC. There is an edge for each follows relationship. There is an edge for each "replies-to" relationship in a tweet. There is an edge for each "mentions" relationship in a tweet. There is a self-loop edge for each tweet that is not a "replies-to" or "mentions". The tweets were made over the 10-day period from Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 19:35 UTC to Friday, 06 July 2012 at 03:44 UTC.
The graph is directed.
The graph's vertices were grouped by cluster using the Clauset-Newman-Moore cluster algorithm.
The graph was laid out using the Harel-Koren Fast Multiscale layout algorithm.
The edge colors are based on relationship values. The vertex sizes are based on followers values. The vertex opacities are based on followers values.
Overall Graph Metrics:
Vertices: 876
Unique Edges: 14636
Edges With Duplicates: 1032
Total Edges: 15668
Self-Loops: 840
Connected Components: 40
Single-Vertex Connected Components: 38
Maximum Vertices in a Connected Component: 836
Maximum Edges in a Connected Component: 15621
Maximum Geodesic Distance (Diameter): 6
Average Geodesic Distance: 2.471
Graph Density: 0.0188519243313764
Modularity: 0.332678
NodeXL Version: 1.0.1.217
Top 10 Vertices, Ranked by Betweenness Centrality:
chucktodd
EricFehrn
stefcutter
andreamsaul
LOLGOP
donnabrazile
dailyrundown
BuzzFeedBen
DavidCornDC
Norsu2
Top Replied-To, in Entire Graph
ericfehrn
mittromney
dailyrundown
chucktodd
stefcutter
paulbegala
dcarter888k
norsu2
zacmoffatt
mmurraypolitics
Top Mentioned, in Entire Graph
ericfehrn
dailyrundown
mittromney
stefcutter
barackobama
zacmoffatt
norsu2
andreamsaul
ryangop
chucktodd
Top URLs in Tweet, in Entire Graph
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDfH_lajwmA&feature=youtu.be
ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-424614
www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/12/mitt-romney-commits-...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTByvLtYIYA
Top Hashtags in Tweet, in Entire Graph
#tcot
#p2
#mitt2012
#obamacare
#gop
#romney
#obamatax
#teaparty
#mapoli
#aca
Top Tweeters, in Entire Graph
missb62
mommadona
lovelyladypa
sasha2000
MWJ1231
MelissaTweets
JeffersonObama
Jarjarbug
sgw94
stefsstuff
via
By Roger Stone (Part 1)
I once tweeted that “John Podesta’s time in the barrel will come.”
Well, friends, at the risk of having my barrel comments absurdly interpreted as some of sort of obscure racist slur as General John Kelly’s comment about Congressional cowgirl Frederica Wilson was this past week, put on your polka shoes because it may be time to roll out the barrel…or roll out the barrels, I should say: one for John Podesta and another for his brother and business partner, Tony Podesta.
The two Podestas – the “Podestae”, if you will — have run a highly-lucrative influence peddling shop since the first days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and continued their nefarious self-enrichment orgy at public expense well through the Obama reign.
Just yesterday it was revealed that special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Of course, it was this inevitable scrutiny of the Podestas’ underhanded business dealings that my “time in the barrel” referred to and not, as some have quite falsely claimed, to the hacking and publication almost two months later of John Podesta’s emails.
Factcheck.org reported the plain truth that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the substantial public record of campaign 2016 to substantiate the cynical partisan allegation by, among others, California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence committee, that I predicted the Podesta email hack.
In a House hearing on March 20, 2017, Schiff stated:
“[I]n August, Stone does something truly remarkable when he predicts that John Podesta’s personal emails will soon be published. “Trust me,” he says, “it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel, hashtag #CrookedHillary.” In the weeks that follow, Stone shows a remarkable prescience. “I have total confidence that WikiLeaks and my hero, Julian Assange, will educate the American people soon,” he says, hashtag, “#LockHerUp.” “Payload coming,” he predicts. And two days later, it does. WikiLeaks releases its first batch of Podesta emails. The release of John Podesta’s emails would then continue on a daily basis up until the election.” [Emphasis added.]
Schiff continued his allegation by asking, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that [Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman] John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that his private emails would be exposed?”
Schiff’s defamatory claim is a conclusory leap that simply does not hold to any honest, logical or factual scrutiny. He simply assumes for his own purposes that my August 21 Tweet about “Podesta’s time in the barrel” had to have been a reference to the release of Podesta’s emails by WikiLeaks two months later.
On ABC’s “This Week” on March 26, I flatly denied that I predicted Podesta’s emails would be hacked, adding — correctly — that nothing in the Tweet, “made any reference to John Podesta’s email.” Nothing in the context of my Twitter feed in which the Tweet was posted would support Schiff’s claim either. I told ABC’s This Week that my Tweet referred to Podesta’s business dealings with Russia, and the expectation that it would become a news story, before too long.
But inexplicably Factcheck.org, rather negating the whole purpose of having an organization by that name, posted a note saying “just because there is no proof whatsoever that something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t.” Thankfully we haven’t sunk quite to the point in which this passes for an evidentiary standard.
It is important to understand the context of that Tweet. Paul Manafort, who is one of my oldest friends in politics and usher in my wedding to Nydia Bertran de Espinosa (Stone), was being hounded in a media frenzy based on financial records of the political party Manafort was then legally working for being splashed all over page one of the New York Times.
We now know that a ledger reportedly showing payments to Manafort of $12 million were a forgery. The Ukrainian prosecutor handling the Manafort investigation debunked the purported ledger entirely, saying that Manafort is not a target of any impending indictment. You will not, however, read this fact in the New York Times.
Nonetheless, if Manafort’s business activities in the region were going to get scrutiny it was only fair that the Podesta Brothers’ adventures also be exposed to the public.
The Clintons were obsessed with Manafort’s reputation as a hyper-organized hard-driving political operative with extensive national experience. Those of us in the Trump Camp new that the Clinton political operation was scouring Russia and Ukraine to find negative dirt on my fellow Connecticut native, Manafort.
In Ukraine, these matters were handled by Ukrainian intelligence at the direction of Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who essentially paid the Clinton Foundation so much money that he was able to overturn the democratically-elected and U.S.-recognized government of Ukraine in a coup.
The Podesta brothers’ extensive business dealings were first revealed in the “Panama Papers”, published in January 2016, as reported by the Observer in “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection”, published on April 7, 2016.
Around August 1, 2016, Dr. Jerome Corsi briefed me in a conversation in which he detailed the extent and breadth of the Podesta’s business dealings. I asked Corsi to memorialize his outline in a memo. I must again stress that all of this had been reported and was public information, available to anyone who knew where to look.
Both Manafort and the Podesta’s retroactively-filed reports pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, though I think it can be fairly argued that neither was actively engaged in any lobbying. There are some lawyers who argue that attempting to effectuate public opinion in the United States while being paid by foreign entity requires registration. Presumably out of an abundance of caution both Manafort and the Podestas filed.
Back in August 2016, CNN reported that the FBI was investigating Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia and the Podesta Group to the Ukrainian government and the alleged corruption by the party of former Ukranian president Victor Yanukovych.
On August 19, CNN further reported that the Podesta Group issued a statement affirming that the Group had retained the Washington-based boutique law firm of Caplin & Drysdale “to determine if we were misled by the Center for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.”
The Podesta Group statement to CNN continued: “When the Center became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Center are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
“We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Center,” concluded the Podesta Group’s statement.
That same August 19, Buzz Feed reported that the Podesta Group and Manafort’s D.C. political firm were working under contract with the same group advising Yanukovych and his Ukrainian Party of Regions – namely the non-profit European Center for a Modern Ukraine based in Brussels.
Way back in 2013, Reuters reported the European Center for a Modern Ukraine paid $900,000 to the Podesta Group for a two-year contract aimed at improving the image of the Yanukovych government in the United States and that the Podesta Group told Reuters that they were implementing the contract via their contacts with key congressional Democrats.
Mainstream media attention has focused on the contract Manafort’s K-Street firm of Davis, Manafort & Freedman had from all the way back in 2007 with Yanukovych’s political party, Ukraine’s Party of Regions to perform an “extreme makeover,” re-positioning the party from being perceived as a “haven for Donetsk-based mobsters and oligarchs” into that of a legitimate political party.
On February 21, 2014, Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped then-President Yanukovych to flee violent protests seeking to oust him from office, flying him out of Ukraine and then traveling through Crimea, to arrive in Russia, where he has remained, trying desperately to restore himself to power back home in Kiev.
Just as the Trump/Russia collusion propaganda continued making headlines, the Manafort/Russia investigation was churning away, despite its lack of any evidence and documentation. In Manafort’s case, opponents have failed to demonstrate that Manafort ever received $12.7 million in some 22 previously-undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, as purportedly documented by entries in a “black ledger” revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Yet, this dubious, unverified “evidence” was sufficient for New York Times reporters to conclude that Manafort had hidden back-channel ties to Putin, financed by under-the-table payments arranged via Ukraine.
Ironically Putin has little use for Manafort because Manafort strongly urged Yanukovych to take Ukraine into the European Union, a move obviously opposed bitterly the Russians. Manafort did evidently briefly represent Russian oligarch and Putin crony, Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, but it was none other than U.S. Senator John McCain who met privately with Deripaska during McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, despite being warned twice by the FBI that Deripaska was a Russian asset. A source has informed me that McCain solicited money from Deripaska for the Republican Institute McCain controlled and which was legally able to accept foreign funds.
This is how the Democrat Party builds a “case” against President Trump, layering one unproven accusation on top of another, forming a chain of “evidence” that, at least to them, looks like an open-and-shut case, but in truth is nothing but a string of unsubstantiated innuendo that wouldn’t make it past the desk of any honest prosecutor or court of law.
Mainstream media, led by the drain-swirling New York Times serially reports every loose allegation and partisan leap to convenient, albeit false, conclusions and suddenly, BAM, it is news! This is what they do. This is why the term “fake news” has become a truer description than President Trump ever thought when he first coined it in the national lexicon.
Following the initial “charge”, the Democratic Party narrative charges alleges that Manafort never registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Justice Department, which that would only have been required if he was contracted with the Ukrainian government, not with a political party in the Ukraine, and further that Manafort transferred his close relationship with Putin (via Yanukovych) to the Trump campaign.
From there, the Democrat narrative keeps going, suggesting that Manafort’s close relationship to the Kremlin allowed him to position the Trump campaign to receive a dump of embarrassing Clinton campaign hacked exposing the efforts Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as chairman of the DNC, took to rig the primaries for Hillary, and distinctly disadvantage her challenger, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
But this entire Democrat Party narrative is thrown into disarray if it turns out the Podesta brothers, via the Podesta Group, have tighter and better-documented financial ties to Russia, involving far more numerous and tangled contacts than have ever been suggested to tie Manafort to Russia via Ukraine.
Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking transactions dating back to the 1970’s was the disclosure that Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sberbank, uses the Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.
“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector,” wrote former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler in an article entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published by the Observer on April 7, 2016.
On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times reported Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.” Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal investigation concluded Sberbank had distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
On April 5, 2016, Lachlan Markay, reporting in the Washington Free Beacon, published the lobbying registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests with banking, trade, and foreign relations. It doesn’t end there.
On Aug. 20, 2016, Breitbart reporter Jerome Hudson documented that the Podesta Group was paid a total of $180,000, according to public records, for the consulting work done under contract with the Russia-controlled firm Uranium One in 2012, 2014, and 2015.
As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,” and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons; despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
The Daily Caller reported on April 29, 2015, that the Podesta group was to lobby the State Department while Hillary was secretary of state, with $40,000 of the total paid to lobby the State Department, the Senate, and the National Security Council on “international mining projects.”
According to a New York Times report published August 13, 2013, in 2011 a wave of mid-level program staff members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization.”
Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. Who stepped in to replace Lindsey for several months as temporary chief executive? None other than John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in William Jefferson Clinton’s White House, stepped in.
It’s not hard to realize that the links between Podesta and Russia are well documented and go back many years.
fromhttps://stonecoldtruth.com/is-it-the-podestas-time-in-the-barrel-yet/ rogerstone1.blogspot.com/2017/10/is-it-podestas-time-in-b...
#BienvenueEnFrance: BIENVENUE NULLE PART !
Aujourd'hui c'est le 6ème jour de GREVE DE LA FAIM pour les 5 etudiant-e-s de #Nantes qui s'opposent à l'augmentation des frais d'inscription pour les étudiant-e-s étranger-e-s, ceci dans une indifférence quasi générale. Pas trop honte Frederique Vidal ?
#13février, Blocus de la Fac (dès 6h/6h30) puis Manif (10h) contre l'augmentation drastique des frais d'inscription pour les étudiant-e-s étranger-e-s.
Communiqué de Université de Nantes en Lutte : nantes.indymedia.org/articles/44531
Bilan santé par les Street Medics : nantes.indymedia.org/articles/44527
Plus d'infos sur : twitter.com/UnivNantesLutte et www.facebook.com/Universit%c3%a9-de-Nantes-en-lutte-16915... et plus de photos sur : frama.link/valk
Articles sur le sujet :
Les pré-inscriptions d'étudiants étrangers à l'université française sont-elles stables, comme l'affirme le gouvernement?
#Factchecking de Libération - www.liberation.fr/amphtml/checknews/2019/02/11/les-pre-in...
Analyse du dispositif #BienvenueEnFrance par Olivier Ertzscheid sur : www.affordance.info/mon_weblog/2018/11/bienvenueenfrance....
Puis dénonciation de Frédérique Vidal : Ministre du mensonge, du racisme d'état et de l'apartheid décomplexé. www.affordance.info/mon_weblog/2019/02/frederique-vidal-m...
During training with the Sony A7SIII a common question I get is: since you can't use Super 35 mode in 4k video, can you still use APS-C lenses to film with?
It's logical that you can't use Super 35 mode (= APS-C sized video mode) in 4k since the A7SIII films 4.2k in full sensor readout. Hence you can only use the Super 35 mode in FHD (1080p).
In Sony full frame mirrorless cameras you can always switch between using the camera full frame or in APS-C. For photo you always sacrifice megapixels. The A9/A9II/A7II/A7III's 24MP becomes 10MP in APS-C, A7RIII's 42MP becomes a usuable 18MP in APS-C, A7RIV's 61MP becomes a very decent 26MP in APS-C. The advantage for photo is that you can turn a 600mm lens into a 900mm lens without teleconvertor.
The A7S-series have a 12MP sensor (to be used as a lowlight behemoth with those giant-sized photocytes in the sensor - factcheck: www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_a7s-iii/ ) so that would result in a very poor APS-C sized picture.
But what with people who are using APS-C lenses on their A7III full frame cameras and want to use them on their new A7SIII for video?
HACK: Select in the menu "Zoom", activate "Clear image zoom", and add the option "Zoom" to 1 of your programmable C-buttons. Once you film, you can push the C-button and zoom in (using the touchscreen) until the vignetting from the APS-C sized lens is gone.
Yes, you can also use this hack for photography with an APS-C lens. However, you can't make RAW pictures. You'll have to set the camera to shooting JPG/HEIF only (in that case it's very important to tweak your Creative Look to get the shot in camera looking the way you like, but with all the adjustable parameters of the new Creative Looks, that's easy.)
And yes, you can use Clear Image Zoom on all Sony ILCE-cameras (from A6000 up to A9II) to get extra reach from your lens.. you can even turn a prime lens into a zoom lens with minimal quality loss.
For photo I would recommend it in cases of emergency, or for shoots where you only need JPG's (webcontent?)
For video however it's already becomming a rather popular feature ever since the A6400/A7III generations of ILCE-cameras.
Was this clear?
Did it help you in any way?
Are you going to try it?
Source: redcathedral.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-to-use-a7siii-with-...
NOORDERDICHT
ONZE PLANEET BESTAAT VOOR 80 PROCENT UIT WATER
EN DAAROM NOEMEN WIJ HAAR AARDE
Deze inzending kwam via een derde en viel daardoor een beetje buiten de boot maar leek heel geschikt voor het brugwachtershuisje waar Worldport Cleanup domicilie houdt en goede werken verricht in de Rotte. De jury vond het een grappige en spitsvondige tekst en een pijnlijke tegenstelling. En, laat weten #factchecking: rond 70% van onze wereld bestaat uit water.
OUR PLANET IS 80 PERCENT WATER
AND THAT IS WHY WE CALL IT EARTH
This entry came via a third party and therefore fell by the wayside, but it seemed very suitable for the bridge keeper's house where Worldport Cleanup has its domicile and does good work in the Rotte. The jury thought it was a funny and clever text and a painful contradiction. And, let us know #factchecking: around 70% of our world consists of water.
During training with the Sony A7SIII a common question I get is: since you can't use Super 35 mode in 4k video, can you still use APS-C lenses to film with?
It's logical that you can't use Super 35 mode (= APS-C sized video mode) in 4k since the A7SIII films 4.2k in full sensor readout. Hence you can only use the Super 35 mode in FHD (1080p).
In Sony full frame mirrorless cameras you can always switch between using the camera full frame or in APS-C. For photo you always sacrifice megapixels. The A9/A9II/A7II/A7III's 24MP becomes 10MP in APS-C, A7RIII's 42MP becomes a usuable 18MP in APS-C, A7RIV's 61MP becomes a very decent 26MP in APS-C. The advantage for photo is that you can turn a 600mm lens into a 900mm lens without teleconvertor.
The A7S-series have a 12MP sensor (to be used as a lowlight behemoth with those giant-sized photocytes in the sensor - factcheck: www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_a7s-iii/ ) so that would result in a very poor APS-C sized picture.
But what with people who are using APS-C lenses on their A7III full frame cameras and want to use them on their new A7SIII for video?
HACK: Select in the menu "Zoom", activate "Clear image zoom", and add the option "Zoom" to 1 of your programmable C-buttons. Once you film, you can push the C-button and zoom in (using the touchscreen) until the vignetting from the APS-C sized lens is gone.
Yes, you can also use this hack for photography with an APS-C lens. However, you can't make RAW pictures. You'll have to set the camera to shooting JPG/HEIF only (in that case it's very important to tweak your Creative Look to get the shot in camera looking the way you like, but with all the adjustable parameters of the new Creative Looks, that's easy.)
And yes, you can use Clear Image Zoom on all Sony ILCE-cameras (from A6000 up to A9II) to get extra reach from your lens.. you can even turn a prime lens into a zoom lens with minimal quality loss.
For photo I would recommend it in cases of emergency, or for shoots where you only need JPG's (webcontent?)
For video however it's already becomming a rather popular feature ever since the A6400/A7III generations of ILCE-cameras.
Was this clear?
Did it help you in any way?
Are you going to try it?
Source: redcathedral.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-to-use-a7siii-with-...
www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
According to factcheck.org hr 3200 explicitly denies coverage for undocumented patients.
Tradewell Stores, a regional grocery chain, funded this plaque in 1975 along with part of the cost of restoring the Pike Place Market. As the plaque explains, Tradewell was located here, and their predecessor Eba's Cut Rate Markets had a store in the building early on.
But the history isn't quite right.
Herman and Minnie Eba's stall opened by 1908, not in 1910.
The Eba's store in the Corner Market opened in 1927, not 1929.
Tradewell took over Eba's in 1939, not 1934.
Ouch, right? The only accurate dates were contemporary to the plaque. I'm just glad that Tradewell was still interested in its early history in 1975. That's pretty cool.
Here is my full history of Eba's, and its transition to Tradewell, ba-kground.com/ebas-cut-rate-markets-tradewell-story-part-7/
(I've lost the original caption to this photo, so my comment below does not refer to this text.)
Okay, this one takes some explanation, and some narrative. Please bear with me.
Urbanity is the proportion of the population that lives in urban areas (as opposed to rural). Figures for it properly come from the US Census Bureau. I used a summary of the 1990 Census urbanity data that had already been assembled online:
www.allcountries.org/uscensus/37_urban_and_rural_populati...
In a previous chart on US violent crime rates, I noted that there was an obvious national peak in violence in the early 1990s, but that the states contributed to that peak in a variety of extents ranging from not at all to many hundreds of crimes per 100,000 population. I decided to name the extent to which a state's crime rate changed as part of that national trend, and the name I came up with is "Violent Crime Elasticity."
National violence rate peak graph:
flickr.com/photos/91128695@N07/8298646211/
To calculate a numerical value for this elasticity for each state, I chose a low point in the state's crime rates of the 60s, a high point from the early 90s, and a low point in the past 5 or 6 years. If we call these three values A, B, and C respectively, the formula for Violent Crime Elasticity is |B - (A + C) / 2| where |x| means absolute value of X. In simple terms, the number describes how much that state's violent crime rate rose and fell in the national pattern.
It seems to me that some powerful crime-causing force of society was exerted and that the states were susceptible to that force to varying degrees. That is not properly called a hypothesis because it is not obviously testable, but it potentially explains what's going on. (FactCheck.org says it's "a trend criminologists chalked up to 'changes in the crack cocaine market.'")
WIth that paradigm in mind, I examined this map of the peak crime rates during the most violent years of the early 1990s.
flickr.com/photos/91128695@N07/8299176067/
The states that formed the top of the peak seemed to be ones with major urban populations: It occurred to me that perhaps urban populations were more susceptible to that crime-causing force I suspect may exist.
This chart represents a rough test of that properly testable hypothesis. It results in a 30.5% correlation between elasticity and urban proportion of the population, which is not high enough to mark the the hypothesis as confirmed but is high enough to suggest that a better analysis may be able to. Perhaps a county-by-county analysis could confirm or reject the theory more conclusively.
While eating lunch. I had to see who got into this car. He added "REAL" with a felt-tipped marker.
I'm skeptical of the certificate but tend to believe this.
EDIT (May 26, 2011): But see this too!
(Now, I'm really skeptical!)
I photoshopped out the car logo & name. (I used Serif PagePlusX4.)
Tonight's Debate is Brought to You
by the Letter F for Failure.
Obamageddon: Obama's Economic Record...
1. Median Household Income has declined by 7.3% percent from January 2009 ($54,983) to June 2012 ($50,964)
2. According to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010
3. According to the Federal Reserve, the percentage of families with no or negative wealth increased to 32.5 percent in 2010 – up from 19.2 percent in 2007.
4. According to the Pew Research Center, the middle income class has shrunk to 51 percent in 2011 from 61 percent in 1971.
5. According to the Pew Research Center, the median Net Worth of the Middle Class plummeted 39% from $152,950 in 2007 to $93,150 in 2010.
6. According to the Pew Research Center, middle income class share of U.S. income shrunk to 45 percent in 2010 from 62 percent in 1970.
7. The unemployment rate in the United States has been above 8 percent for 43 straight months from Feb 2009 to Aug 2012.
8. Long-term Unemployed Americans (jobless for 27 weeks or more) has risen by 92 percent from 2.6 million (Jan 20, 2009) to 5 million (Aug 2012)
9. The average duration of unemployment is 39.2 weeks (Aug 2012), a 96 percent increase from strong>20 weeks when Obama took office.
10. The percentage of working age Americans with a job has been below 59 percent for 36 straight months
11. According to the National Employment Law Project, 58 percent of the new jobs created have been low paying jobs.
12. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, only 24.6 percent of all of the jobs are “good jobs.”
13. In 2011, 53 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed last year.
14. The number of jobs created by new businesses decreased by approximately 1 million from 2008 to 2010.
15. One out of every four workers earn less than $10 per hour in the ‘Recovery’ from the Great Recession.
16. Due to the Great Recession, the average pay for self-employed people has fallen 8 percent from $46724 in 2006 to $43,003 in 2010.
17. In the past decade, insurance premiums have increased three times as fast as wages.
18. Worker Health insurance contributions have risen by 17.5 percent from 3,515 family coveragein 2009 to $4,129 family coverage in 2011.
19. From 2001 to 2010, America has lost 15 manufacturing facilities every day on average. In 2010, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities every day closed every day.
20. According to Harvard Univesity’s State of the Nation’s Housing 2012 Study, 20.2 million American households spent more than half of their incomes on housing in 2010, a 12.8 percent increase from 2007 (17.9 million American households)
21. Since 2009, the cost of Household electricity skyrocketed by $300 in one year to $1419 in 2010. Electric rates have increased above the inflation rate for five consecutive years.
22. Home Values have fallen 18 percent. From $185,000 (January 2009) to $151,600 (July 2012)
Romney's Record as Governor of Massachusetts...
1. State Mandated Healthcare (RombamaCare)
2. First Governor to unconstitutionally institute Gay Marriage
3. Romney supported homosexual and transgendered education in public schools
4. Romney supported abortion with taxpayer funding
5. Fee Fee Romney increased Fees to support Big Government Spending
6. Romney Increased State spending 20.7% ($22.848 billion to $27.588 billion)
7. Government employment grew 7.2% during Romney's tenure.
8. Romney's net job growth of 1.4 percent was far below the growth of the national average at 5.3 percent.
9. Romney supports amnesty for illegal immigrants
Romney's Economic Record...
Record| Jan, 2003 | Jan, 2007 | Change
Unemployed | 192,914 | 159,101 | -17.5%
Unemployment Rate | 5.6% | 4.6% | -17.9% (1)
State Debt | $16 billion (Jan. 1, 2003 - A22) | $18.7 billion (Oct. 1, 2006 - A24) | +16.9%
Debt per person | b$7,551 | $10,612 | +40.5%
(1) Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth during Romney’s entire term. Romney took office during an economic upswing yet, Massachusetts' net job growth of 1.4 percent was far below the growth of the national average at 5.3 percent.
In his first year as Governor, Romney increased the Gas Tax by 400% to raise taxes by $60 million per year.
Fee Fee Romney increased fees and taxes to the taxed tune of $740.5 million.
The father of RombamaCare has increased private insurance costs by $4.3 billion, increased federal spending by $2.4 billion on Medicaid, and Romneycare is estimated to cost $2 billion more than was budgeted over 10 years.
Today at Liverpool's 'Bedroom Tax' protest held in Derby Square outside the Queen Elizabeth 11 Law Courts, Garston's Labour Member of Parliament does a 'piece to camera'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Eagle
blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-cameron-slips-up-o...
Think for yourself and question authority.
- Timothy Leary, psychologist and writer (22 Oct 1920-1996)
Each state is shaded to reflect Violent Crime Elasticity, a term I made up for the extents the state conformed to the national trend of violent crime increasing from about 1960 to 1990, then falling quickly from about 1990 to 2000. States colored red reflected the trend, green state showed essentially no change, and the rest are in between.
I noted that there was an obvious national peak in violence in the early 1990s, but that the states contributed to that peak in a variety of extents ranging from not at all to many hundreds of crimes per 100,000 population. I decided to name the extent to which a state's crime rate changed as part of that national trend, and the name I came up with is "Violent Crime Elasticity."
National violence rate peak graph:
flickr.com/photos/91128695@N07/8298646211/
A comparison of urbanity to elasticity:
flickr.com/photos/91128695@N07/8299411079/
It seems to me that some powerful crime-causing force of society was exerted and that the states were susceptible to that force to varying degrees. (FactCheck.org says it's "a trend criminologists chalked up to 'changes in the crack cocaine market.'" In essence, this map shows which states were hardest hit by the "crack epidemic.")
© All Rights Reserved - Black Diamond Images
As of 22nd November 2019 according to the RFS some 55 fires were burning in NSW from origins in mid November or even earlier. Many of these fires had merged into larger fronts and fire front perimeters have been rapidly increasing continueing to threaten homes, property and ecologically important forest environments of national significance.
By end of summer much of NSW will be burnt and the toll on wildlife and flora, some of it rare and endangered, will be horrendous, terminal even for some species.
With Australia having one of the worst records in the world for species extinction rates, among the worlds highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases and one of the worst records in the world for land clearing there is an apparent total absence of urgency to act to reduce and repair the damage done by 200 years of industrialisation and European agricultural methods.
These fires will seriously exacerbate what most people but our governments appear to know, we are now at the point of crisis and its as good as too late even now for many species.
In recent times we have seen rainforest burn in Lamington National Park and at Eungela National Park behind Mackay in Queensland.
We currently, as of late November 2019, have severe threats facing Mount Hyland and Point Lookout in New England National Park where ancient rainforest trees have never before burned. These rainforests can be saved but it will require a serious commitment by governments to properly resource the fight to save them. Based on previous experience it appears the will is not there by our current governments to properly assemble fund and allocate resources to adequately protect our critical natural heritage.
Last week the perimeter of all fires in NSW was well over 6,000 kilometres with more than 1.6 million hectares burned. Significant compartments of this burned area are in important areas of natural heritage.
The fire front perimeter for NSW's disastrous November 2019 bushfires is probably closer to double now what it was a week or so previously.
If only we had the resources to conduct prescribed burning, hazard reduction and back burns over these kinds of perimeters as some are advocating. Unfortunately the number of safe days to conduct hazard reduction burns is steadily declining as a result of climate change.
I saw one interesting comment on Facebook recently stating that we spend billions on the defence of our country from what some might say are non existent physical threats and on giving big corporations massive tax breaks yet we cannot recognise that we are facing a very real home grown threat from drought, climate change and bushfires and yet show little inclination to appropriately fund our Emergency Services and National Parks Services.
What kind of country are we evolving into when such priorities are so far removed from the best interests of its citizens, flora and fauna and landscapes.
False naratives and misinformation and the politics of division are actively engaged in by our political leaders fully supported by their financial benefactors in servicing their own agendas which are clearly detracting from the reality of the urgency of the environmental protection task immediately at hand.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/22/australia-...
via
Roger Stone releases his testimony that will be delivered to the House Intelligence Committee, setting the record straight and debunking the lies concerning Russia.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Committee members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and staff. My name is Roger J. Stone, Jr., and with me today are my counsel, Grant Smith and Robert Buschel.
I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, The Trump Campaign and the Russian state. I view this as a political proceeding because a number of members of this Committee have made irresponsible, indisputably, and provably false statements in order to create the impression of collusion with the Russian state
Stone Opening Statement without any evidence that would hold up in a US court of law or the court of public opinion.
I am no stranger to the slash and burn aspect of American politics today. I recognize that because of my long reputation and experience as a partisan warrior, I am a suitable scapegoat for those who would seek to persuade the public that there were wicked, international transgressions in the 2016 presidential election. I have a long history in this business: I strategize, I proselytize, I consult, I electioneer, I write, I advocate, and I prognosticate. I’m a New York Times bestselling author, I have a syndicated radio show and a weekly column, and I report for Infowars.com at 5 o’clock eastern every day.
While some may label me a dirty trickster, the members of this Committee could not point to any tactic that is outside the accepted norms of what political strategists and consultants do today. I do not engage in any illegal activities on behalf of my clients or the causes in which I support.
There is one “trick” that is not in my bag and that is treason. As someone whose political activism was born from the anti-communism of Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan; and whose freedom seeking family members were mowed-down by Russian tanks on the streets of Budapest in 1956, I deeply resent any allegation that I would collude with the oppressive Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
My colleague, Michael Caputo, voluntarily sat in this seat a couple of months ago, gave what I believe were candid and truthful answers to those who cared to sit in on the interview; and yet, when he was done, he was accused of perjury by a member who did not even have the pretention to show up for his interview. He was eviscerated by some Committee members and consequently, the press.
The most unfair aspect of this turn of events, and behavior by some Committee members, is that this Committee refuses, to this day, to release the transcripts of his testimony for the world to read and judge for themselves.
Roger Stone
Multiple members of this Committee have made false allegations against me in public session in order to ensure that these bogus charges received maximum media coverage. Now however, you deny me the opportunity to respond to these charges in the same open forum. This is cowardice. Fortunately, we will have the opportunity today to take the exact words of some members of this Committee and examine them in order to uncover the lies.
Members of this Committee as well as some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee aren’t alone in their irresponsibility. On January 20, 2017, the New York Times reported that the intelligence services were in possession of emails, records of financial transactions and transcripts of telephone intercepts, which proved that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page colluded with the Russians for the benefit of Donald Trump. So, where are these records? Can this Committee or our intelligence agencies produce them? I didn’t think so.
Nor, is this irresponsibility entirely partisan. Sen. John McCain told CNN that I “…should be compelled to appear before the Senate to explain my ties to Yanukovych and the Russians.” This is very simple, Senator the answer is: “None” and “None.” In fact, I worked against Yanukovych’s party in the 2006 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, and have no ties to any Russians.
Given this Committee’s consistent refusal to allow me to testify in a public session, in the interest of compromise, I have repeatedly requested that the transcript of mytestimony here today, be released immediately upon conclusion of today’s session. Even this constructive suggestion has been rejected. What is it you fear? Why do you oppose transparency? What is it you don’t want the public to know?
I can assure each of you, I will not let myself be a punching bag for people with ill intentions or political motives. Understand, I will expose the truth in every forum and on every platform available to me.
As a 40- year friend and advisor of Donald Trump, I had continually urged him to run for the presidency, beginning in 1988. When he decided in 2015 to become a serious candidate against a weak slate of opponents, I became one of the Trump campaign’s first consultants, reprising a role I played in 2012 when Donald Trump briefly considered a candidacy in that election. I performed consulting work for the campaign for five months and the consulting relationship ended in August 2015. I, however, didn’t go quietly into the night, I continued to work, write, and advocate on behalf of his candidacy because to this day, I believe he has the potential to be a truly transformative president and to make our nation great again.
These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta and the transfer of that information to WikiLeaks. No member of this Committee or intelligence agency can prove this assertion.
Because the DNC steadfastly refused to allow the FBI to examine their computer servers, this entire claim is based on a self-serving report by CloudStrike, a forensic IT company retained by, directed, and paid for by the DNC.
The Nation magazine recently reported on a study issued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is comprised of numerous former high-level US intelligence officials. Based upon the VIPS study, The Nation concluded that, “There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5, 2016… not by the Russians and not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak- a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable datastorage device. In short, they reported it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the alleged initial “hack,” that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.” Additionally, these unproven allegations have led to a frivolous lawsuit filed by former Obama administration lawyers against me and the Trump campaign. In my motion to dismiss, I submitted a sworn declaration of Dr. Virgil Griffith, a cognitive computer graduate from the California Institute of Technology, who questioned the unproven assumptions that Russian hackers are responsible for theft of DNC emails and other data.
I recognize that those who believe that there was collusion between the Trump camp and the Russian state, now say Stone, “MUST HAVE” been involved, but that is not based on one shred of evidence. This is nothing more than conjecture, supposition, projection, allegation, and coincidence, none of it proven by evidence or fact. I understand the Committee’s interest in me, I use all clauses of the 1st Amendment to achieve my goals, I am out there, I am provocative and partisan, but let’s be clear, I have no involvement in the alleged activities that are within the publicly stated scope of this Committee’s investigation – collusion with the Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. I have every right to express my views in the public square. I actively participate in matters of great public concern. I also believe, and you should too, my friend, Tucker Carlson, who said last week, ‘You should never accept, uncritically, the imprecise conclusions of ….the “intel community.’’
The mantra-like repetition of the claim by our vaunted 17 intelligence agencies that the “Russians” colluded with the Trump campaign to affect the 2016 election, does not make it so. These are, after all, the same entities who insisted the North Koreans would not be able to launch a viable rocket for 3-5 years, that insisted Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib prison, and that the government had no bulk data collection program, until Edward Snowden revealed otherwise. Our intelligence agencies have been politicized. I realize they are deeply unhappy over President Trump’s refusal to expand the proxy war in Syria and their failure to obtain the no-fly zone promised to them by Hillary Clinton, which would be an open invitation for World War III. That the intelligence agencies have continued to leak, to the detriment of President Trump, in violation of the law, is proof positive of their politicization. Members of this Committee have made three basic assertions against me which must be rebutted here today.
Roger Stone and Donald Trump
The charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email,that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton or that, my now public exchange with a persona that our intelligence agencies claim, but cannot prove, is a Russian asset, is anything but innocuous and are entirely false. Again, such assertions are conjecture, supposition,
projection, and allegations but none of them are facts.
For example, Mr. Schiff, the ranking member of this Committee asked, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that is private emails would be exposed?” I want to know where I predicted this. Can Mr. Schiff read us the exact quote and source from where I predicted the hacking or Mr. Podesta’s email? Can Mr. Schiff even come up with a documented quote where I use Podesta and email in the same sentence — before it happened?
My Tweet of August 21, 2016, in which I said, “Trust me, it will soon be the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary” Must be examined in context. I posted this at a time that my boyhood friend and colleague, Paul Manafort, had just resigned from the Trump campaign over allegations regarding his business activities in Ukraine. I thought it manifestly unfair that John Podesta not be held to the same standard. Note, that my Tweet of August 21,2016, makes no mention, whatsoever, of Mr. Podesta’s email, but does accurately predict that the Podesta
brothers’ business activities in Russia with the oligarchs around Putin, their uranium deal, their bank deal, and their Gazprom deal, would come under public scrutiny.
Podesta’s activities were later reported by media outlets as diverse as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. My extensive knowledge of the Podesta brothers’ business dealings in Russia was based on The Panama Papers, which were released in early 2016, which revealed that the Podesta brothers had extensive business dealings in Russia. The Tweet is also based on a comprehensive, early August opposition research briefing provided to me by investigative journalist, Dr. Jerome Corsi, which I then asked him to memorialize in a memo that he sent me on August 31st, all of which was culled from public records. There was no need to have John Podesta’s email to learn that he and his presidential candidate were in bed with the clique around
Putin.
In fact, FactCheck.org, a news organization funded by the Annenberg Foundation, reported, “There is nothing in the public record so far that proves Stone, a political operative and longtime Trump associate, predicted thePodesta email hack.”
Now, let me address the charge that I had advance knowledge of the timing, content and source of theWikiLeaks disclosures from the DNC. On June 12, 2016,WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange, announced that he was in possession of Clinton DNC emails. I learned this by reading it on Twitter. I asked a journalist who I knew had interviewed Assange to independently confirm this report, and he subsequently did.
This journalist assured me that WikiLeaks would release this information in October and continued to assure me of this throughout the balance of August and all of September. This information proved to be correct. I have referred publicly to this journalist as an, “intermediary”, “go-between” and “mutual friend.” All of these monikers are equally true.
In the March 20th public session of this Committee, Mr. Schiff asked former FBI Director Comey, “Are you aware that Mr. Stone also stated publicly that he was in direct communication with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?” The way the question was asked was clearly designed to cast me in a bad light. I have never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my
communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist. Again, Mr. Schiff is guilty of a false assertion.
The fact is that during the March 20th Comey hearing and many times subsequent, members of this Committee, and even Democratic nominee for president, felt that theycould go into the public square and make similar charges without any substantiation or basis in fact. Congressman Heck of Washington, stated, for example, “… we’ve heard about quite a few individuals in the Trump orbit who fell somewhere on that spectrum from mere naïveté, disturbing enough if this naïveté is a feature of those (who) were supposed to be running our country and foreign policy, to unwitting Russian dupes, to willing blindness, to active coordination. This rogues gallery includes those already fired- Roger Stone, adviser to Donald Trump…” This is the worst sort of neo-McCarthyism. To be clear, I have never represented any Russian clients, have never been to Russia, and never had any communication with any Russians or individuals fronting for Russians, in connection with the 2016 presidential election.
To pile on, in an interview on MSNBC on May 19, 2017, Congresswoman Speier felt compelled to say: “I believe that Michael Caputo is part of this cabal including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, and others who had business relationships with Russia.” No, I do not have and I’ve never had any relationship with Russia or any Russian entity.
You have falsely accused me without any evidence – you should apologize today. One more apology I would demand in public, if she were here today, is from presidential runner-up, Hillary Clinton. Following the lead of the minority members of this Committee, in her new fiction book, she repeats the same false narratives about me as if they were the truth…they could not be further from the truth.1
And then there is Congressmen Eric Swalwell who, as reported in Newsmax, said, “From Roger Stone, we hope to learn the same things we learned from Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Don [Trump] Jr., and others who were particularly active in their dealings with Russians during the summer of 2016.” Has Mr. Swalwell read my exchange with the Twitter persona which he alleges constitutes collusion?
The exchange is innocuous at best. Since I had no other contact with Russians, what could he be referring to?
Finally, let me address this limited, benign, and now entirely public exchange with a persona on Twitter calling themselves Guccifer 2.0. While some in the intelligence community have claimed that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cutoutand that it is responsible for the hacking of the DNC servers, neither of these assertions can be proven by this Committee or the aforementioned intelligence community.
I wrote an article for Breitbart on August 5, 2016, in which I express my view that Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian asset, at the same time reporting their claim taking credit for hacking the DNC. My only exchange with Guccifer 2.0 would begin on August 14, 2016, after my article appeared, and ran through September 9, 2016. Imagine my deep disappointment when Mr. Schiff purposefully conflated these dates before this Committee, reversing them to create the false impression that I had communicated with Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter prior to publication of the article questioning whether Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cut-out. Shame on you Mr. Schiff.
Now that more information is in the public domain, the very question of whether Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC must be revisited in light of the VIPS report cited by The Nation.
As they concluded, “Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source – claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.” I am left to conclude that the President is right when he calls this Congressional investigation a, “witchhunt.”
Based on what we know now, it is clear that there was a foreign nation which was colluding with a presidential campaign in an attempt to influence the outcome of the . Therefore, I strongly urge this Committee to investigate the numerous, publicly documented contacts between Ukraine and the Clinton campaign, particularly in light of recent public reports that Ukraine is now providing sophisticated missile technology to North Korea.
Please do not continue to perpetuate falsehoods here today.
View this document on Scribd
from Roger Stone – Stone Cold Truth stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-official-statement-to-cong...
rogerstone1.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/roger-stone-official...
www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-qa-on-omicron-updated-...
Q&A on Omicron-Updated COVID-19 Boosters
Earlier this month, the U.S. began administering the first COVID-19 booster vaccines that have been updated to better match the latest circulating coronavirus strains.
Many scientists expect the revised boosters will be more effective than their predecessors, but whether that’s the case and to what degree remains unknown.
The new vaccines, from mRNA vaccine makers Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, are bivalent, meaning that along with the original version of the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2, they also specifically target the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants. At the end of August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that together the two subvariants accounted for more than 90% of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S.
The Food and Drug Administration authorized the retooled boosters on Aug. 31, and the CDC signed off on the shots the following day, after the agency’s vaccine advisory committee voted 13 to 1 to recommend both boosters.
The authorizations mark a shift in American COVID-19 vaccination policy. In what’s being called a “fall booster ‘reset,’” people will no longer count the number of vaccine doses they’ve received. Instead, the guidelines are simple: If you’ve had your primary series (one dose of J&J or two doses Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna or Novavax) and it’s been at least two months since your last dose, then you’re eligible for one omicron-updated booster.
We’ll explain how the new vaccines are different and what experts are saying about them.
How are the updated shots different from the original ones?
The revised boosters are essentially identical to the original ones, except for a tweak to some of the mRNA included in the shots.
For both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, half of the mRNA in the vaccine includes the instructions used in the earlier vaccines for cells to make the spike protein of the original coronavirus strain. The other half includes the instructions for making the spike protein of the BA.4 and BA.5 strains, which is the same in the two subvariants. The spike proteins trigger a protective immune response in the body.
The dual components are why the boosters are referred to as “bivalent.” For the same reason, you may hear the original vaccines being called “monovalent.”
As before, the new Pfizer/BioNTech booster contains a total of 30 micrograms of mRNA, matching the dosage of the primary series shots, while the revamped Moderna booster contains a total of 50 micrograms, or half of the dosage of the primary series.
Who is eligible to get an updated booster?
People 12 years of age and older are eligible to receive Pfizer/BioNTech’s updated booster and adults 18 years or older are eligible to receive Moderna’s updated booster, two or more months after a previous COVID-19 vaccination.
It doesn’t matter if you’ve never been boosted or if you’ve received multiple boosters already — everyone who meets the age requirements and has had their primary vaccinations can get the updated booster as long as they are two months or more out from their last COVID-19 dose. (If you’re still not sure if you’re eligible, you can take an online quiz from the CDC to find out.)
The updated boosters are only authorized as booster shots, so they can’t be given to people as primary vaccinations. For the specified populations, the updated boosters are also replacing the earlier versions of the boosters, which are no longer authorized. As a result, all booster doses will be the bivalent ones — except for kids 5 to 11 years old, who are currently only eligible to receive Pfizer/BioNTech’s original booster dose for their age group.
What evidence supports the use of these omicron-updated boosters?
To authorize the updated boosters, the FDA borrowed its approach for influenza vaccines, which each year are modified to match the flu strains that are expected to circulate that season. Because the changes are only tweaks — and because it would be impractical if not impossible to test the vaccines in people prior to the flu season — flu vaccines are approved without doing clinical studies each year.
The omicron-updated boosters are similar in that they have not yet been evaluated in people, although there is other supporting evidence to suggest that they will work. For one, there is clinical data on a slightly different omicron-specific bivalent booster that targets the BA.1 subvariant that was dominant earlier this year.
Moderna tested this booster in about 600 adults who had received two primary doses and one original booster, and at least three months later were given a second original booster or a BA.1 bivalent booster. In blood tests, there was a stronger antibody response a month out in those who had received the BA.1 booster against both BA.1, BA.4/5 and the original virus, as well as against a variety of other variants.
The Pfizer/BioNTech BA.1 bivalent booster was tested in a similar way, in about 600 people over the age of 55, with a median of about six months in between the booster doses. At one month, the antibody responses to BA.1 were better in those who had received the BA.1 booster than the original, and the antibody responses to the original virus were similar in the two groups.
Although similar studies are being done in people for the BA.4/5 bivalent booster now, those results aren’t in yet. However, experiments from both companies show that mice previously vaccinated and then boosted with the bivalent BA.4/5 vaccines have higher BA.5 neutralizing antibody responses than those boosted with the original vaccine.
immune responses.
Still, some experts have been wary of moving forward with a new COVID-19 booster without human data on these specific vaccines. Dr. Pablo Sanchez, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University and a member of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, ultimately voted against recommending the new boosters because of that concern.
“I voted no because I really feel that we need the human data,” he said during the meeting. “There’s a lot of vaccine hesitancy already. We need the human data.” Nonetheless, Sanchez said that, given his age, he was “almost sure” that he would take it.
The rest of the committee, though, felt comfortable enough, given the precedent with flu, to recommend the boosters.
Numerous other countries have opted to go with updated BA.1 bivalent vaccines, which do have clinical data (although the European Medicines Agency, which recommended BA.1-adapted boosters in early September, also recommended the BA.4/5 boosters on Sept. 12). The FDA, however, decided that the best strategy would be to target BA.4/5, since BA.1 is already no longer circulating.
The agency could have waited for the clinical data on BA.4/5, but thought that doing so would sacrifice too many lives. Estimates from the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub suggest that delaying the booster campaign by a month would result in 137,000 more hospitalizations and 9,700 more deaths.
“We have to be a step ahead, or at least we have to try,” FDA chief Dr. Robert Califf explained in a press conference following the authorization of the new boosters. “Because if we waited for all the proof to come in, the wave will have already passed us by and the damage will have been done.”
E. John Wherry, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said the difference between BA.1- versus BA.4/5-targeted boosters was likely to be small, but given the choice, he would also opt for BA.5.
“This will not be the last version of the vaccine that we see,” he said. “Going with what’s here currently makes a lot of sense to me.”
As for when the human data on the bivalent BA.4/5 booster will be available, Dr. Peter Marks, the head of vaccines at the FDA, said on Aug. 31 that it would probably be at least until the end of September or October, “because of the time it takes to actually dose and then do the assays.”
How effective are the new boosters?
Scientists don’t know how well the redesigned shots will work. In theory, the omicron-updated boosters should be better than the original boosters in protecting against disease because they will more specifically target the coronavirus strains currently circulating — and some data suggest that will be the case.
It’s also possible the updated boosters will prevent more infections, although that protection will be short-lived.
But as the World Health Organization has said, “The full public health benefit of variant-updated vaccines and their value proposition over current vaccines can only be quantified once vaccine effectiveness data have been obtained.”
The real question is not whether the booster will increase protection — they will, scientists told us — but whether and to what degree the updated booster will be better than the original boosters.
Wherry said he thought the new boosters would be better, but the difference would likely be modest.
“I think it’s important to not give the false sense of hope that this new bivalent vaccine is going to be a magic bullet that stops all omicron viruses,” he said. “We should be expecting that they keep the most vulnerable people out of the hospital, but we should not be expecting them to completely protect from, say, mild disease.”
Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert and pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is not convinced that the updated boosters will be an improvement.
“I think they’re all going to be of value, I don’t think they’re necessarily going to be of any greater value than just boosting with the ancestral strain,” he said. “What worries me in all this is … that it’s sort of being oversold, being overpromised,” Offit added. “I just fear that people might be disappointed.”
How safe are the new boosters?
The exact formulation found in the new boosters has not yet been tested in people, but the revised vaccines are very similar to the original vaccines that have now been given hundreds of millions of times in the U.S. alone and have been shown to only very rarely result in serious side effects.
In addition, both companies tested the slightly different BA.1 omicron-specific bivalent booster in people, and found no new safety concerns. Vaccine recipients reported experiencing the same expected and temporary side effects as the original shots, including pain, redness and swelling at the injection site; fatigue; headache; muscle pain; and fever.
Given the similarity in design and manufacturing process as the original vaccines, the FDA felt very confident authorizing the boosters. Other experts also told us there is no reason to think that the revamped boosters will pose any new safety hazards. Offit, for example, said it was “extremely unlikely” that the new boosters would be any different in terms of safety.
Notably, Sanchez, the sole dissenter on the CDC’s advisory committee, explained after his “no” vote that while he felt there needed to be clinical data to be able to recommend the boosters, he was not that worried about safety.
“I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others,” he said, adding that he would almost certainly get the new booster himself.
Like the original vaccines, scientists do expect the updated shots will carry a small increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle and its surrounding tissue, particularly in young males. Most people who are affected by the rare side effect and are treated, the CDC says, feel better quickly.
Another issue being monitored by scientists is whether boosting could hurt a person’s ability to respond to a future variant, as we have written. But Wherry, who has been following this topic, said there is no indication that is a current risk. “From the data that exists, I see no concern about that whatsoever,” he said. Some animal studies suggest that giving an omicron-only vaccine as a first vaccine dose in animals could be detrimental, he added, but that’s not what is being given to people.
What do experts say about who should get the updated shots, and when?
There is broad agreement that older people and those at higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 should get the new boosters. But experts differ on whether young, healthy people should get another dose.
“I don’t think that a healthy young person who has already received three doses frankly needs another dose, because I think they are protected against serious illness,” Offit said. “After about six months after their last dose, they’re not going to be as protected against mild illness, but that’s true of all infections like this one, meaning short incubation period, mucosal infections.”
Offit still recommends that people over 75 years old, those with significant underlying health problems and those who are immunocompromised seek out the shots. Those are the groups, he said, that have benefited from the previous boosters.
But others think it’s reasonable to give the shots more widely, and that younger people should at least consider them.
“Most young, healthy people are protected from severe disease even after three doses and that protection is pretty durable,” Wherry said. The updated booster, he said, is primarily meant to protect the most vulnerable and to perhaps offer a little bit better protection from mild or moderate disease.
“If you’re over 65, everyone should get boosted,” he said. “If you have comorbidities or are immunosuppressed, absolutely get boosted.”
For younger people, Wherry said boosters are still a good idea, but there can be more individual choice — and that people shouldn’t think that the booster will make them impervious to infection.
“I would encourage people to think about their own behavior and when the right timing for the boost would be,” he said. “If you last got a dose of vaccine or were last infected three months ago and you’re a middle-aged, otherwise healthy individual, you may consider waiting a month or two and time your next dose closer to the holidays or closer to when there’s going to be more indoor activities so that peak level of antibodies coincides with when you’re going to be attending family gatherings or be inside more.”
Although two months is the minimum amount of time to wait since the last COVID-19 dose before getting the updated booster, many experts, including Offit and Wherry, suggest that people wait longer than that since last being vaccinated or being infected with SARS-CoV-2.
“The science really says for a young, healthy individual, you’re going to get the best boosting if you wait four to six months,” Wherry explained. “That allows for your memory B cells and memory T cells to mature a little bit, antibody levels to come down from their sort of max peak level after infection or vaccination.”
But for people who are older or have health problems, Wherry suggested consulting a doctor, because those individuals might need to get their doses sooner.
Is this the start of a shift to an annual COVID-19 vaccine?
Maybe. The Biden administration has presented this fall’s booster as the first of a once-a-year shot for COVID-19, similar to an annual seasonal flu vaccine. But while that could be a reasonable approach, it’s too early to truly know.
Some federal health officials have said as much, noting that new variants might disrupt those plans and that older or high-risk people might need more than one vaccine a year. Some experts, including Offit, are critical of the administration for getting ahead of itself on this question. Offit told us it was reasonable to target high-risk groups, but that young, healthy people may not need an annual boost.
Others are more comfortable with the concept. Wherry, for instance, said that given data that protection against severe disease begins to wane a little around nine months, the one-year time frame makes sense as “a benchmark for the average person” — and also is practical.
“A bit of aligning to traditional health care is an important part of this because it’s actually going to help with vaccine compliance, keeping up with what’s new,” he said, adding that there would remain flexibility for higher-risk people, who likely already interact more with the health care system, to get additional doses if needed.
Where can I get an updated booster?
You can find where the new boosters are available in your area by visiting Vaccines.gov. As with other COVID-19 vaccines, the reformulated boosters will be available at pharmacies, community health centers, and some clinics and doctor’s offices. But a lack of funding means they are less likely than the earlier shots to be available in various public health outreach efforts.
In some places, the boosters may be difficult to find at first. Certain locales have reported shortages of the Moderna vaccine in particular in the first weeks of the rollout, in part due to the delayed release of 10 million doses from a packaging plant in Indiana.
Again, the only booster available to people 12 years and older will be the updated one, so even if it’s not advertised as being new or bivalent, that’s what you will receive.
Are the shots still free?
Yes. The U.S. government has purchased more than 170 million doses of the updated boosters, and at this time, all COVID-19 vaccinations remain available to the public free of charge, regardless of immigration or insurance status.
The administration, however, has warned that without additional funding, it expects it will need to transition COVID-19 vaccine costs “to the commercial market” as early as January. When that occurs, the vaccines will likely be covered for most people with health insurance, similar to flu and other vaccines. People without insurance, however, would need to pay out of pocket.
Can I get my updated booster along with my flu shot?
Yes. Health officials are suggesting this pairing be offered to you this fall, since they know that getting both in one go is more convenient and increases the likelihood that you’ll get both vaccinations.
After one nearly nonexistent and one mild flu season — likely thanks to COVID-19 mitigation measures — some experts are concerned this flu season might be worse than normal. The relative lack of flu for two years running likely means there is less immunity in the population and more people will be susceptible. Clues from the Southern Hemisphere, which often presage flu severity in the North, have been mixed. Australia has had a bad flu season in terms of the number of cases, raising concerns — but other countries have not had particularly active seasons.
Regardless of how severe the flu season turns out to be, vaccination is still recommended. Several studies, along with surveillance data, indicate that getting a COVID-19 shot at the same time as a flu shot is safe and doesn’t reduce your immune response to either virus. The temporary, expected side effects of vaccination are usually on par with or only slightly worse in people getting both shots compared with those just getting a COVID-19 dose.
For some individuals, getting the shots together may make sense, but for others, the timing might not be ideal. The CDC recommends getting the flu shot in September or October, but many experts recommend October or later because vaccine protection against flu wanes and may not last the entire season if given too early. Still, getting the flu vaccine a bit early is better than not getting it at all.
If you opt for dual vaccination, you should get the two shots in different arms or in the same arm with the injections at least an inch apart.
This year, for the first time, the CDC is preferentially recommending that people over 65 years of age get a high dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine instead of a standard flu vaccine, given evidence that those shots may work better for this group.
When will kids be able to get updated shots?
Teens 12 and older are eligible for Pfizer/BioNTech’s omicron-updated booster, but the wait is likely to be at least a few more weeks for younger kids.
On Sept. 21, the head of vaccines at the FDA said that the agency was “only a matter of weeks away” from authorizing updated boosters for kids 5 to 11 years old and “a few months away” for children under 5. The day before, the CDC released a planning document saying it expected Pfizer/BioNTech’s booster for 5- through 11-year-olds and Moderna’s booster for 6- to 17-year-olds in “early to mid-October.”
Pfizer and BioNTech had previously said that they expect to submit their EUA application for updated boosters for children 5 through 11 years of age in early October and that they were pursuing an application for the youngest children down to 6 months.
As with the new boosters for those 12 and up, there may not be clinical data in children for the specific vaccine prior to authorization.
At the CDC’s advisory committee meeting, a Moderna representative said that the company would be completing its EUA submission for its original booster vaccine in kids 6 through 17 by mid-September. The company, she said, is currently conducting a study of primary series BA.1 bivalent vaccines and original and BA.1 bivalent boosters in children 6 months to 5 years old, which is expected to be finished by the end of 2022. She added that Moderna was “exploring” ways of testing BA.4/5 bivalent vaccines in children for use as primary vaccinations and boosters.
..like wearing a vagina hat and demanding someone else pay for your birth control..
And why is birth control anybody's business but your own? If you can't afford birth control, you really, really, shouldn't be having sex. In case you haven't read the box, it's only 99% effective.. Just saying'...
And.. be careful what you wish for.. A government that can decide who gets birth control is a government that may just as easily decide who *needs* to take it.. Or who is sponge-worthy, as they joked about on Seinfeld.
The whole issue reminds me another false narrative that was put forward in Ashley Judd's "Nasty Woman" rant, where she essentially said if "they" pay for Viagra, "they" should pay for birth control..
I suppose there *are* some men who qualify for free Viagra through some Federal program. But I am equally sure there are just as many programs where women can get free birth control - with the same kinds of strings and qualifiers attached. But if you want free stuff, there are always going to be hoops to jump through, and a master to serve.
Because one of the immutable facts of the universe is "There ain't no free lunch. Period." And there ain't no free birth control (or Viagra) either..
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/covid-19-herd-immunity-is-a-mir...
COVID-19 herd immunity is a mirage. Here's how the virus could become 'manageable' instead
Last May, “we had enough vaccination and natural immunity to have basically almost achieved a population level of immunity,” said Dr. Eric Topol. “We were getting down to fewer than 10,000 cases a day. We were looking good.”
Then the delta variant moved the goal posts.
With the original version of the virus that causes COVID-19, America's current vaccination rate of about 65% would have been enough to stop the spread.
"If we were dealing with the original, we have sufficient vaccination such that the large-scale pandemic would be over in this country," said Dr. Joshua Schiffer, a physician and mathematical modeling expert who studies infectious diseases at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Unfortunately, the now-dominant delta strain is more than twice as contagious and requires more people to be immune through vaccination or previous infection for the virus to stop spreading, say experts.
“Now we need 85 to 90% vaccinated against delta,” said Topol, vice president for research at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, and a national expert on the use of data in medical research.
It’s not an impossible number. In countries like Portugal, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, upwards of 80% of the total population are now vaccinated, and cases and deaths are falling.
'Cannot believe we are here': 700,000 US COVID-19 deaths is a milestone we never expected to reach
That seems unlikely to happen in the United States, where only 55% of the total population is fully vaccinated, and 12% of Americans say are adamantly opposed to it.
Herd immunity is now effectively out of reach, said Stephen Kissler, an infectious disease fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
“I don’t think it’s realistic,” he said.
What is herd immunity?
The concept of herd immunity is simple: When disease sweeps through a herd of animals, the ones that survive become immune. Eventually, enough have what’s known as natural immunity, and the disease has so few animals left to infect that it dies down or evens out.
The concept got a lot of press early in the pandemic when various politicians and even nations suggested that if young, healthy people got mild cases and recovered, there would be enough immunity that the virus wouldn’t circulate anymore and vulnerable people would be protected.
This was before vaccines were available, and the United Kingdom, Sweden, Brazil and the U.S. under the Trump administration advocated the idea to varying degrees.
On one extreme was a group, which included Florida’s now surgeon general, that in October 2020 published the Great Barrington Declaration. It called for the world to end lockdowns and other transmission prevention measures and embrace herd immunity for COVID-19 to protect the vulnerable while allowing economies to thrive.
New Florida surgeon general Dr. Joseph Ladapo stands apart, agrees with governor on COVID policy
The idea was quickly denounced. With a death rate at the time of 1%, COVID-19 would have had to kill 3.2 million Americans for enough people to be infected to reach herd immunity.
For a time, the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines changed the calculation. If two-thirds of Americans had gotten immunized in the spring, the virus would have had so few new people to infect that it could have been largely stopped.
Then the delta variant hit.
At the same time, new data began to show natural immunity wasn't as protective as vaccination, and the benefits of shots began to fade after about six months.
Vaccine mandates: California becomes first state to announce plans to mandate COVID-19 vaccine for schoolchildren
More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies, said Dr. Mark Rupp, an infectious disease expert at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
“I wish it weren’t true,” Rupp said. Many of his patients are convinced that having recovered from COVID-19 is all the defense they need.
The good news is that for people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, a single dose of vaccine gives excellent immunity, Topol said.
“You cannot replicate that with any vaccine we have," he said. "It’s pretty extraordinary.”
So far, Rupp isn’t having much success convincing his vaccine-resistant patients to get a shot.
“I've been pleading with folks,” he said.
When will the pandemic end?
With 55% of Americans fully vaccinated and at least 30% recovered from COVID-19 at least once, how is it possible the pandemic can still be surging in so many places?
America is a big country, and even a small number is a lot of people. While it’s hard to pinpoint the number of people not exposed to COVID-19 either through infection or vaccination, experts put it likely at about 15% of the U.S. population. That’s almost 50 million people – plenty to still be getting sick, said Harvard’s Kissler.
It’s also becoming clear that COVID-19 is not “one and done,” said Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of statistical and data science and director of the COVID-19 Modeling Consortium at the University of Texas at Austin.
Reinfection and breakthrough cases are changing the landscape of susceptibility as immunity wanes.
On October 1, the seven-day daily COVID-19 deaths in the United States were at 1,479, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“I find it humbling that the leftover percentage, 15%, is still enough to overwhelm our health care system," said Schiffer.
Experts say endemic COVID-19 could make virus 'manageable'
The optimistic expectation, experts say, is that the pandemic will die down, and the virus will become one of the world's many endemic viruses that continue to circulate but cause much less disease and death.
It's predicted to become an infection that still sweeps through the adult population in the winter, sickening some but generally delivering serious illness only to the very old, those with compromised immune systems, and pregnant women who are unvaccinated, said Dr. Gregory Poland, editor-in-chief of the journal Vaccine.
“Once we get to the point where everybody has been exposed or vaccinated and if – and it’s a big if – COVID does what other respiratory illnesses do, it may be a disease that’s manageable,” said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University.
June 2021: How does COVID-19 end in the US?
February 2021: Health officials say the coronavirus will likely become endemic in the next several years.
Ideally, babies and toddlers would get it multiple times before making it to kindergarten, experts say. For the vast majority, COVID-19 would be mild as it is today for most young children. By the time they begin school, they would have pretty strong immune protection.
The COVID-19 vaccine would become one of the routine immunizations of childhood, probably requiring several doses and possible boosters if new variants appear, experts say.
Much like the flu, COVID-19 in the Northern Hemisphere is expected to be an illness that shows up in the colder months.
If infected, vaccinated adults would generally have mild or even asymptomatic cases. Unvaccinated adults would be at higher risk for severe disease. With age, the immune system becomes less robust, so annual COVID-19 shots would be especially important for those over 65 and the immunocompromised.
COVID-19 also would likely continue to mutate. In some years it would be very mild, in others more severe.
COVID-19 is still evolving
But will this virus follow the typical path of others that we come to live with?
“That’s the trillion-dollar question,” said Columbia’s Shaman.
There are no guarantees with SARS-CoV-2, which can so quickly mutate. The worst-case scenario is that it evolves into something even more dangerous or more contagious than delta.
"All that has to happen is for a new variant with a greater escape from immunity to come along, and we start all over again," Poland said.
Fact check: Yes, viruses can mutate to become more deadly
Public health experts have worried for years about a virus with the infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and the death rate of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which is 32% fatal.
Learning to live with COVID-19 means accepting uncertainty and staying ever-vigilant for what might come, said Rustom Antia, a professor of population biology at Emory University.
“Barring a miracle,” added Schiffer, “COVID will be part of our lives for the rest of our lives.”
Contact Weise at eweise@usatoday.com
The Central Business District in Houston, Texas, USA.
Prior to the arrival of the Streetcar in Houston in the 1870, the area that is now the Central District of the city was the main residential area of the city.
While generally focused on the most prosperous areas of town, the Houston City Street Railway extended one line a full mile south of the centre of the city, making it the first streetcar network designed to spur residential development.
By the 1890s, new, larger local streetcar companies finally accumulated the capital necessary to begin constructing streetcar suburbs beyond the conventional boundaries of the city.
This led to the development and rapid growth of areas like the Houston Heights and Montrose Residential development subsequently moved out of the central business district; Quality Hill previously being Houston's first upscale neighbourhood was left virtually abandoned by the turn of the 20th century.
This spurred the redevelopment of the district into becoming the home to nine Fortune 500 corporations, 3,500 businesses, and approximately 150,000 workers. Major employers include Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, and United Airlines. It contains between 35% and 40% of the Class A office locations of the overall business districts in Houston
Information sources:
Atrapado tras las rejas.
Detalle del Foot Locker de Portal de l'Àngel.
Gerard Girbes Berges (2009)
Fotografía utilizada en:
www.deon.pl/wiadomosci/polska/art,13729,dzp-wiezniowie-ch...
Fotografía utilizada en Subgamers:
www.subgamers.com/alligation-gaming-assisting-organized-c...
Fotografía utilizada en:
emmalwallace.com/2009/02/jail-the-bad-bankers-global-move...
Fotografía utilizada en:
Fotografía utilizada en:
atelier.rfi.fr/profiles/blog/show?id=1189413:BlogPost:99232
Fotografía utilizada en:
tcjewfolk.com/law-politics-gaza-flotilla-activists/
Fotografía utilizada en:
www.destadutrecht.nl/misdaad/nieuws/962/meer-schooluitval...
www.destadutrecht.nl/misdaad/nieuws/773/veelpleger-utrech...
www.destadutrecht.nl/misdaad/nieuws/519/snackbar-voorstra...
www.destadutrecht.nl/misdaad/nieuws/106/utrechts-college-...
Fotografía utilizada en:
fullfact.org/factchecks/romanian_criminals_UK_Britain-28799
Fotografía utilizada en:
www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/wereldwijd-steeds-meer-...
Governor Romney claims that capping tax deductions as part of his plan to pay for across the board tax cuts would make his plan "revenue neutral". The math doesn't add up. Read Third Way's analysis in The New Romney Tax Plan: Does it add up?