This is the original article (New items follow below.)
Official Penn DOT website blurb
Note the date above: May 7, 2025. On that date, you will become a second-class citizen unless you bow to your masters’ demands.
Papers, please!
Although it’s been delayed several times, the insidious Real ID is coming. You will need to pay for the government’s approval so you can board a flight that NEVER LEAVES THE COUNTRY. And you won’t be able to seek redress of grievances because you won’t be ALLOWED into a Federal — and likely state — building if you don’t have their “Good Sheeple” ID to see your elected representatives. You won’t even be able to check with your local Social Security office about retirement without it. Or register to vote — if you’re a native-born American, that is.
Already, Drivers License locations have a security guard stationed inside them, because “Real ID” is given out there.
So far it’s supposedly a one-and-done deal, once you pay, the Real ID gold star is yours for life.
Does anyone really believe that the bureaucrats won’t draw from that well again — and again? Isn’t that what we were promised for the Covid-19 clot shot, one-and-done? How about the promise that Federal Income tax would only be on the rich? Or that electric cars would be cheaper to run — and less polluting — than internal combustion vehicles?
Okay, so maybe you don’t need to fly across the country, so what? Remember though that the TSA controls ALL public transportation. Think I’m kidding? Did you ever see those notices like on City buses: “The TSA requires all passengers to wear a mask….” How long do you suppose it will take the elitists to require Real ID to board a cross-town bus? They’re already trying to take our cars away from us.
Real ID is anathema to our country’s ideals
The very idea of Real ID is anathema to what the country stands for (or used to stand for) in the first place. In the second place, does anyone care to bet that the current surge of illegal immigrant/future democrat voters won’t need it — or that the elitists will provide it to them so they can continue to vote democrat?
I didn’t think so.
I know some leftist loons will claim I’m a conspiracy theorist. OTOH, how many things that the left decried as a “conspiracy theory” has been proven true?
We need to remove the upcoming “Real ID” restrictions for access to airlines and government buildings
The much-delayed “Real ID” will violate the Constitution if allowed to go into effect.
First, In limiting access to ALL federal buildings only to those with a “Real ID,” the law infringes on the 1st amendment right “..to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Already you can find armed security personnel in many federal and other government buildings. If you can’t get into the building, you can’t see your elected Congressional representatives or testify before any federal entity. If they can make exceptions, then the law is i weapon to silence critics, not to protect anyone.
Second, The need for a “Real ID” to fly on a commercial airplane WITHIN THE UNITED STATES is effectively a “no-fly” list for citizens who don’t desire a “Real ID.” This violates the “general welfare” clause of the Preamble, and while it might be construed as lawful under Article One, Section eight “regulate interstate commerce” clause, personal (ie non-business) travel by definition is NOT “commerce.” And one could reasonably argue that it violates the 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
“Real ID” creates an illegal underclass for people who may simply want to be left alone and not have “Big Brother” constantly looking over their shoulders.
It is also the first step to communist-style “travel documents” to control the movement of the citizens of the US.
California lost 508,903 people from its total population, while New York lost 524,079, about 15,000 more. Net outward migration from California to other states was still higher than New York’s measurement. The Los Angeles Timesreported.
Some of the reasons folks leave? High housing costs, but other reasons include the long commutes and the crowds, crime and pollution in the larger urban centers. The increased ability to work remotely — and not having to live near a big city — has also been a factor.
House investigations of Trump and his administration.
I’m sure you’ve heard the left cry that the peoples work won’t get done because of Republicans and their investigations. Well I want to thank NBC News for this partial list of phony Democrat investigations of Donald Trump. Who’s still not been convicted of any of these charges.
He’s making investigations great again — at least in number.
At least 14 Democratic-led House committees have been investigating various aspects of President Donald Trump’s businesses, campaign and his presidency since the beginning of this year, an NBC News review shows. In all, those committees have launched at least 50 probes into Trump world.
The investigations include whether Trump obstructed justice in the Russia probes, whether his businesses inflated their assets, how his daughter and son-in-law obtained their security clearances, whether he used his power to interfere with mergers, how his actions might have slowed aid to Puerto Rico, and conflict of interest allegations involving cabinet members.
The NBC review shows the busiest committees appear to be the Judiciary and Oversight panels. Some of the inquiries might have gone dormant, and some are cross-committee — meaning they’re being investigated jointly by more than one committee — so they are listed under those committees, but are only counted once in the NBC investigation total.
Here’s a look at the probes that have been made public, organized by committee:
Obstruction of justice, including the possibility of interference by Trump and others in a number of criminal investigations and other official proceedings, as well as the alleged cover-up of violations of the law;
Public corruption, including potential violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, conspiracy to violate federal campaign and financial reporting laws, and other criminal misuses of official positions for personal gain;
Abuses of power, including attacks on the press, the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies; misuse of the pardon power and other presidential authorities; and attempts to misuse the power of the office of the presidency.
Reports that the president said he would pardon acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan if he illegally closed the southern border to migrants
Trump Administration’s decision to stop defending ACA
INTELLIGENCE: Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
Russia investigation, including the scope and scale of the Russian government’s operations to influence the U.S. political process, and the U.S. government’s response, the extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Trump’s campaign, transition, administration or business interests, whether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Trump, his family, his business, or his associates; whether Trump, his family, or his associates are or were at any time at heightened risk of, or vulnerable to, foreign exploitation; and whether any actors — foreign or domestic — sought or are seeking to impede, obstruct, and/or mislead authorized investigations into these matters
California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. And in the aftermath of those four mass shootings, new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — who represents a district in southern California — took the opportunity to poke at the state’s firearms restrictions, saying in a press conference that federal gun control legislation would not be an automatic response to these tragedies because such laws “apparently … did not work in this situation.”
So, did California’s gun laws succeed at making it one of the safest states … or did they fail to stop a string of mass shootings? Questions about the efficacy of gun laws have gotten easier to answer in recent years as changes to federal policy have helped to bring money and people back to the field of gun violence research. But decades of neglect mean there are still lots of blank spaces — policies that don’t yet have good quality data backing them up. A recent report from the Rand Corporation that reviewed the evidence behind a variety of gun policies found just three that were supported by evidence that met the report’s quality standards.1
That fact, however, doesn’t mean other gun laws don’t work — just that the research proving it doesn’t yet exist. Scientists I spoke to saw it as an “absence of evidence” problem, stemming from long-standing, intentional roadblocks in the path of gun violence research. Even the authors of the Rand report say lawmakers should still be putting policies aimed at preventing gun violence into practice now — regardless of what the science does or doesn’t say.
“I think that the goal of the lawmaker is to pick laws that they have a reasonable hope will be better than the status quo,” said Andrew Morral, a senior behavioral scientist at the Rand Corporation. “And there’s lots of ways of persuading oneself that that may be true, that don’t have to do with appealing to strict scientific evidence.”
California doesn’t just have some of the nation’s strictest gun laws and lowest gun death rates, it’s also maybe the best state to study gun laws in, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at University of California, Davis Medical Center. That’s because of both the way the state makes data available to researchers and its willingness to work with researchers to further the science. Wintemute is currently part of a team that is working on a randomized controlled trial of one particular California gun law — an initiative that tracks legal gun owners over time and dispatches authorities to remove their weapons if those people later break a law or develop a condition that would make them ineligible to own guns in the state.
It’s hard to oversell what a big deal this is. Frequently referred to as the “gold standard” of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials split participants randomly (natch) into groups of people who get the treatment and groups that don’t. Because of that, it’s easier for researchers to figure out if a medication is actually working — or if it just appears to be working because of some other factor the people in the study happen to share. These kinds of studies are crucial, but almost impossible to do with public policy because, after all, how often can you randomly apply a law?
But California has been willing to try. It took cooperation from many different levels of state leadership, Wintemute said. The government was always going to slowly expand this particular program statewide, but in this case legislators were willing to work with scientists and randomize that expansion across more than 1,000 communities, so that some randomly became part of the program earlier and some later. When the study finally concludes, researchers will be able to compare these two groups and see how joining the program affected gun violence in those places with a high level of confidence.
Most of the time, however, the scientists who study gun laws aren’t working with the kind of research methodology like this that produces strong results. Morral, along with his Rand colleague, economist Rosanna Smart, have reviewed the vast majority of the research on gun control policies done between 1995 and 2020. Their research synthesis found that a lot of what is out there are cross-sectional studies — observational research that basically just compares gun violence statistics at one point in time in a state that has a specific law to those in a state that doesn’t. That type of study is prone to mixing up correlation and causation, Smart said. There could be lots of reasons why California has lower rates of gun violence than Alabama, but studies like this don’t try to tease apart what’s going on. They end up being interpreted by the public as proof a law works when all they’ve really done is identified differences between states.
The Rand analysis threw out these kinds of studies and only looks at research that is, at least, quasi-experimental — studies that tracked changes in outcomes over time between comparison groups. Even then, the analysis ranked some studies as lower quality than others, based on factors such as how broadly the results could be applied. For instance, a study that only looked at the effects of minimum age requirements for gun ownership in one state would be ranked lower than a study that looked at those effects in every state where a law like that existed.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)
Stand-your-ground laws “appear” to increase firearm homicides.
Following these rules, the Rand team found just three policies that have strong evidence supporting outcomes — and two of these are about the negative outcomes of policies that increase gun access. Stand-your-ground laws, which allow gun owners to use deadly force without trying to leave or deescalate a situation, appear to increase firearm homicides. Meanwhile, conceal-carry laws, which allow gun owners to carry a gun in public places, appear to increase the number of all homicides and increase the number of firearm homicides, specifically. The only laws restricting gun ownership that have this level of evidence behind them are child-access prevention laws, which have been shown to reduce firearm suicide, unintentional self-injuries and death, and homicides among young people.
That makes gun control laws seem flimsy, but it shouldn’t, Morral said. Instead, the lack of evidence ought to be understood as a product of political decisions that have taken the already challenging job of social science and made it even harder. The Dickey Amendment, first attached to the 1996 omnibus spending bill, for example, famously prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding gun violence studies for decades. A new interpretation of that amendment in 2018 changed that, but Dickey wasn’t the only thing making it hard to study gun violence.
Instead, the researchers told me, the biggest impediment to demonstrating whether gun control policies work is the way politicians have intentionally blocked access to the data that would be necessary to do that research.
“So for instance, the federal government has this massive, great survey of behavioral risk indicators that they do every year in every state,” Morral said. “And you can get fantastic information on Americans’ fruit juice consumption as a risk factor for diabetes. But you can’t get whether or not they own guns.” Not knowing gun ownership rates at the state level makes it hard to evaluate causality of some gun control policies, he explained. “And it’s not because anyone thinks [gun ownership] is not a risk factor for various outcomes. It’s because it’s guns.”
The missing data problem also includes the 2003 Tiahrt Amendment that prevents the sharing of data tracing the origins of guns used in crimes with researchers, said Cassandra Crifasi, co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University. “So now all we can see are these sort of aggregate-level state statistics,” she said. “We can no longer look at things like, when a gun is recovered in a crime, was the purchaser the same person who was in possession of the gun at the time of the crime?”
Recently, researchers have even been missing basic crime data that used to be reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. Law enforcement agencies and states were supposed to be shifting to the relatively new, much more detailed National Incident-Based Reporting System, but the transition has been a catastrophe, with some of the biggest law enforcement agencies in the country not yet making the switch because of financial and logistical complications, Smart said. “The FBI has not been able to report for the last eight quarters whether homicide rates are up or down,” Morral added.
But much of the data that’s not available at a national level is available in California, Wintemute said. “Unlike researchers in any other state, we have access to individual firearm purchaser records,” he told me — the very data the Tiahrt Amendment blocks at the national level. “We do studies involving 100,000 gun purchasers, individually known to us, and we follow them forward in time to look for evidence of criminal activity or death or whatever the outcome might be that we’re studying,” Wintemute said.
Unfortunately, because the data is only available in California, the results of those studies would only be applicable to California — making it data that wouldn’t be considered high-quality in the Rand report. Wintemute can demonstrate if a policy is working in his home state, but not whether it works in a big, broad, existential sense. It wouldn’t count towards expanding the number of policies Rand has found evidence to support. This is something researchers like Crifasi see as a flaw in the Rand analysis, but it’s also a reason why Morral and Smart don’t think the evidence-based policy is a good standard to apply to gun control to begin with.
It’s useful to know what there is evidence to support, Morral said. “But we don’t at all believe that legislation should rest on strong scientific evidence,” he said. Instead, the researchers from Rand described scientific evidence as a luxury that legislators don’t yet have.
“There’s always gonna be somebody who’s the first person to implement the law,” said Smart. “And they’re going to have to derive their decision based on theory and other considerations that are not empirical scientific evidence.”
Maggie Koerth is a senior science writer for FiveThirtyEight. Part of ABC.
Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.
Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
Main results
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).
One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non‐inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID‐19 patients.
Hand hygiene compared to control
Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta‐analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low‐certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low‐certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low‐certainty evidence).
We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.
Authors’ conclusions
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.
There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.
The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.
Do physical measures such as hand‐washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.
Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
How do respiratory viruses spread? Respiratory viruses are viruses that infect the cells in your airways: nose, throat, and lungs. These infections can cause serious problems and affect normal breathing. They can cause flu (influenza), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and COVID‐19.
People infected with a respiratory virus spread virus particles into the air when they cough or sneeze. Other people become infected if they come into contact with these virus particles in the air or on surfaces on which they land. Respiratory viruses can spread quickly through a community, through populations and countries (causing epidemics), and around the world (causing pandemics).
Physical measures to try to prevent respiratory viruses spreading between people include:
· washing hands often;
· not touching your eyes, nose, or mouth;
· sneezing or coughing into your elbow;
· wiping surfaces with disinfectant;
· wearing masks, eye protection, gloves, and protective gowns;
· avoiding contact with other people (isolation or quarantine);
· keeping a certain distance away from other people (distancing); and
· examining people entering a country for signs of infection (screening).
What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out whether physical measures stop or slow the spread of respiratory viruses from well‐controlled studies in which one intervention is compared to another, known as randomised controlled trials.
What did we do? We searched for randomised controlled studies that looked at physical measures to stop people acquiring a respiratory virus infection.
We were interested in how many people in the studies caught a respiratory virus infection, and whether the physical measures had any unwanted effects.
What did we find? We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non‐epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.
No studies looked at face shields, gowns and gloves, or screening people when they entered a country.
We assessed the effects of:
· medical or surgical masks;
· N95/P2 respirators (close‐fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and
· hand hygiene (hand‐washing and using hand sanitiser).
We obtained the following results:
Medical or surgical masks
Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.
N95/P2 respirators
Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.
Hand hygiene
Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu‐like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.
What are the limitations of the evidence? Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.
How up to date is this evidence? We included evidence published up to October 2022.
Authors’ conclusions
Implications for practice
The evidence summarised in this review on the use of masks is largely based on studies conducted during traditional peak respiratory virus infection seasons up until 2016. Two relevant randomised trials conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic have been published, but their addition had minimal impact on the overall pooled estimate of effect. The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread of influenza‐like illness (ILI) or influenza/COVID‐19 in our review has many potential reasons, including: poor study design; insufficiently powered studies arising from low viral circulation in some studies; lower adherence with mask wearing, especially amongst children; quality of the masks used; self‐contamination of the mask by hands; lack of protection from eye exposure from respiratory droplets (allowing a route of entry of respiratory viruses into the nose via the lacrimal duct); saturation of masks with saliva from extended use (promoting virus survival in proteinaceous material); and possible risk compensation behaviour leading to an exaggerated sense of security (Ammann 2022; Brosseau 2020; Byambasuren 2021; Canini 2010; Cassell 2006; Coroiu 2021; MacIntyre 2015; Rengasamy 2010; Zamora 2006).Our findings show that hand hygiene has a modest effect as a physical intervention to interrupt the spread of respiratory viruses, but several questions remain. First, the high heterogeneity between studies may suggest that there are differences in the effect of different interventions. The poor reporting limited our ability to extract the information needed to assess any ‘dose response’ relationship, and there are few head‐to‐head trials comparing hand hygiene materials (such as alcohol‐based sanitiser or soap and water). Second, the sustainability of hand hygiene is unclear where participants in some studies achieved 5 to 10 hand‐washings per day, but adherence may have diminished with time as motivation decreased, or due to adverse effects from frequent hand‐washing. Third, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of hand hygiene with other interventions, and how those are best introduced and sustained. Finally, some interventions were intensively implemented within small organisations, and involved education or training as a component, and the ability to scale these up to broader interventions is unclear.
Our findings with respect to hand hygiene should be considered generally relevant to all viral respiratory infections, given the diverse populations where transmission of viral respiratory infections occurs. The participants were adults, children and families, and multiple congregation settings including schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. Most respiratory viruses, including the pandemic SARS‐CoV‐2, are considered to be predominantly spread via respiratory particles of varying size or contact routes, or both (WHO 2020c). Data from studies of SARS‐CoV‐2 contamination of the environment based on the presence of viral ribonucleic acid and infectious virus suggest significant fomite contamination (Lin 2022; Onakpoya 2022b; Ong 2020; Wu 2020). Hand hygiene would be expected to be beneficial in reducing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 similar to other beta coronaviruses (SARS‐CoV‐1, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and human coronaviruses), which are very susceptible to the concentrations of alcohol commonly found in most hand‐sanitiser preparations (Rabenau 2005; WHO 2020c). Support for this effect is the finding that poor hand hygiene, despite the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE), was independently associated with an increased risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission to healthcare workers in a retrospective cohort study in Wuhan, China in both a high‐risk and low‐risk clinical unit for patients infected with COVID‐19 (Ran 2020). The practice of hand hygiene appears to have a consistent effect in all settings, and should be an essential component of other interventions.
The highest‐quality cluster‐RCTs indicate that the most effect on preventing respiratory virus spread from hygienic measures occurs in younger children. This may be because younger children are least capable of hygienic behaviour themselves (Roberts 2000), and have longer‐lived infections and greater social contact, thereby acting as portals of infection into the household (Monto 1969). Additional benefit from reduced transmission from them to other members of the household is broadly supported by the results of other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater.
Routine long‐term implementation of some of the interventions covered in this review may be problematic, particularly maintaining strict hygiene and barrier routines for long periods of time. This would probably only be feasible in highly motivated environments, such as hospitals. Many of the trial authors commented on the major logistical burdens that barrier routines imposed at the community level. However, the threat of a looming epidemic may provide stimulus for their inception.
Implications for research
Public health measures and physical interventions can be highly effective to interrupt the spread of respiratory viral infections, especially when they are part of a structured and co‐ordinated programme that includes instruction and education, and when they are delivered together and with high adherence. Our review has provided important insights into research gaps that need to be addressed with respect to these physical interventions and their implementation and have been brought into a sharper focus as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The 2014 WHO document ‘Infection prevention and control of epidemic ‐ and pandemic‐prone acute respiratory infections in health care’ identified several research gaps as part of their GRADE assessment of their infection prevention and control recommendations, which remain very relevant (WHO 2014). Research gaps identified during the course of our review and the WHO 2014 document may be considered from the perspective of both general and specific themes.A general theme identified was the need to provide outcomes with explicitly defined clinical criteria for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and discrete laboratory‐confirmed outcomes of viral ARIs using molecular diagnostic tools which are now widely available. Our review found large disparities between studies with respect to the clinical outcome events, which were imprecisely defined in several studies, and there were differences in the extent to which laboratory‐confirmed viruses were included in the studies that assessed them. Another general theme identified was the lack of consideration of sociocultural factors that might affect adherence with the interventions, especially those employed in the community setting. A prime example of this latter point was illustrated by the observations of the use of masks versus mask mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition, the cost and resource implications of the physical interventions employed in different settings would have important relevance for low‐ to middle‐income countries. Resources have been a major issue with the COVID‐19 pandemic, with global shortages of several components of PPE. Several specific research gaps related to physical interventions were identified within the WHO 2014 document and are congruent with many of the findings of this 2022 update, including the following: transmission dynamics of respiratory viruses from patients to healthcare workers during aerosol‐generating procedures; a continued lack of precision with regards to defining aerosol‐generating procedures; the safety of cohorting of patients with the same suspected but unconfirmed diagnosis in a common unit or ward with patients infected with the same known pathogen in healthcare settings; the optimal duration of the use of physical interruptions to prevent spread of ARI viruses; use of spatial separation or physical distancing (in healthcare and community settings, respectively) alone versus spatial separation or physical distancing with the use of other added physical interventions coupled with examining discrete distance parameters (e.g. one metre, two metres, or > two metres); the effectiveness of respiratory etiquette (i.e. coughing/sneezing into tissues or a sleeved bent elbow); the effectiveness of triage and early identification of infected individuals with an ARI in both hospital and community settings; the utility of entrance screening to healthcare facilities; use of frequent disinfection techniques appropriate to the setting (high‐touch surfaces in the environment, gargling with oral disinfectants, and virucidal tissues or clothing) alone or in combination with facial masks and hand hygiene; the use of visors, goggles or other eyewear; the use of ultraviolet light germicidal irradiation for disinfection of air in healthcare and selected community settings; the use of air scrubbers and /or high‐efficiency particulate absorbing filters and the use of widespread adherence with effective vaccination strategies.
There is a clear requirement to conduct large, pragmatic trials to evaluate the best combinations in the community and in healthcare settings with multiple respiratory viruses and in different sociocultural settings. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a pragmatic design, similar to the Luby 2005 trial or the Bundgaard 2020 trial, should be conducted whenever possible. Similar to what has been observed in pharmaceutical interventions where multiple RCTs were rapidly and successfully completed during the COVID‐19 pandemic, proving they can be accomplished, there should be a deliberate emphasis and directed funding opportunities provided to conduct well‐designed RCTs to address the effectiveness of many of the physical interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk, and in very specific well‐defined populations with monitoring of the adherence to the interventions.
Several specific research gaps deserve expedited attention and may be highlighted within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The use of face masks in the community setting represents one of the most pressing needs to address, given the polarised opinions around the world, and the increasing concerns over widespread microplastic pollution from the discarding of masks (Shen 2021). Both broad‐based ecological studies, adjusting for confounding and high quality RCTs, may be necessary to determine if there is an independent contribution to their use as a physical intervention, and how they may best be deployed to optimise their contribution. The type of fabric and weave used in the face mask is an equally pressing concern, given that surgical masks with their cotton‐polypropylene fabric appear to be effective in the healthcare setting, but there are questions about the effectiveness of simple cotton masks. In addition, any masking intervention studies should focus on measuring not only benefits but also adherence, harms, and risk compensation if the latter may lead to a lower protective effect. In addition, although the use of medical/surgical masks versus N95 respirators demonstrates no differences in clinical effectiveness to date, their use needs to be further studied within the context of a well‐designed RCT in the setting of COVID‐19, and with concomitant measurement of harms, which to date have been poorly studied. The recently published Loeb RCT conducted over a prolonged course in the current pandemic has provided the only evidence to date in this area (Loeb 2022).
Physical distancing represents another major research gap which needs to be addressed expediently, especially within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic setting as well as in future epidemic settings. The use of quarantine and screening at entry ports needs to be investigated in well‐designed, high‐quality RCTs given the controversies related to airports and travel restrictions which emerged during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We found only one RCT investigating quarantine, and no trials of screening at entry ports or physical distancing. Given that these and other physical interventions are some of the primary strategies applied globally in the face of the COVID‐19 pandemic, future trials of high quality should be a major global priority to be conducted within the context of this pandemic, as well as in future epidemics with other respiratory viruses of less virulence.
The variable quality and small scale of some studies is known from descriptive studies (Aiello 2002; Fung 2006; WHO 2006b), and systematic reviews of selected interventions (Meadows 2004). In summary, more high‐quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the most effective strategies to implement successful physical interventions in practice, both on a small scale and at a population level. It is very unfortunate that more rigorous planning, effort and funding was not provided during the current COVID‐19 pandemic towards high‐quality RCTs of the basic public health measures. Finally, we emphasise that more attention should be paid to describing and quantifying the harms of the interventions assessed in this review, and their relationship with adherence.
So who’s to blame for the happenings in East Palestine, Ohio. EPA, Biden administration or both? You may or may not know, but over a week a go there was a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Roads City evacuated, schools and businesses shut down, etc.
Well the EPA and other federal agencies were called in. A burn was done cause of fear of explosion’s. A harmful chemical was found. Now everything went back to normal. So we thought.
Animals are falling sick and dying near the site of a hellish Ohio train derailment last Friday which released toxic chemicals into the air, according to reports — sparking fears of the potential health impacts the crash could have on humans.
Taylor Holzer, owner of a dairy farm just outside the evacuation zone in East Palestine, told WKBN several foxes he keeps on his property have become mortally ill.
“Out of nowhere, he just started coughing really hard, just shut down, and he had liquid diarrhea and just went very fast,” Holzer told the outlet of one of his animals.
He said others have developed watery eyes and puffy faces, and have uncharacteristically refused to eat for several days.
“Smoke and chemicals from the train, that’s the only thing that can cause it, because it doesn’t just happen out of nowhere,” Holzer said. “The chemicals that we’re being told are safe in the air, that’s definitely not safe for the animals … or people.”
“My video camera footage shows my chickens were perfectly fine before they started this burn, and as soon as they started the burn, my chickens slowed down and they died,” said Amanda Breshears of North Lima. “If it can do this to chickens in one night, imagine what it’s going to do to us in 20 years.”
The charred aftermath of the derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.mpi34/MediaPunch
Now if the EPA and other Federal agencies knew of all the chemicals, was the burn the right thing to do? Did these folks do their own checking to see what chemicals were on the train?
Arizona rancher arraigned on murder charge for allegedly shooting, killing migrant
George Alan Kelly, a 73-year-old Arizona man, is being held on $1 million bail for allegedly killing a migrant on his ranch. FOX Photo
Arizona rancher held on $1M bond fired ‘warning shots,’ armed men pointed ‘AK-47 right at him,’ defense claims.
An elderly Arizona rancher charged with murder and held on $1 million bond in connection to the shooting of a man believed to be a Mexican national on his border property, allegedly fired “warning shots” after an armed group “pointed an AK-47 right at him,” his defense attorney says.
George Alan Kelly, 73, who is charged with first-degree, premeditated murder in the Jan. 30 shooting of a man whom authorities believe to be 48-year-old Gabriel Cuen-Butimea, based on the Mexican voter registration card he carried, had completed chores on his ranch near Kino Springs earlier that day and came to his house to have lunch with his wife when he heard a single gunshot as they ate, Kelly’s court-appointed attorney, Brenna Larkin, wrote in a recent court filing obtained by Fox News Digital.
Kelly saw his horse, who is old, running away scared at full speed, the filing says.
“Finally, he saw a group of men moving through the trees around his home. They were armed with AK-47 rifles, dressed in khakis and camouflaged clothing and carrying large backpacks,” Larkin wrote. “None of them were known to him. He had not given any of them permission to come onto his land.”
Because he was “understandably concerned and reasonably feared for his safety, his wife’s safety, and his animals’ safety,” Kelly called the U.S. Border Patrol ranch liaison, specifically assigned to aid people living on borderlands, to report what he had seen and “to summon immediate help,” Larkin wrote.
Telling his wife to stay inside, silent and away from windows, Kelly went onto his porch with his rifle.
George Alan Kelly is being held on $1 million bond at the Santa Cruz County Jail in Nogales, Arizona, on a first-degree murder charge. (Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office via AP)
“The leader of the armed group of men saw Mr. Kelly and pointed an AK-47 right at him,” Larkin wrote. “Mr. Kelly, fearing for his life and safety, fired several shots from his rifle, hoping to scare them away from him, his wife, his animals, and his home. As he shot, Mr. Kelly took care to aim well over the heads of the armed group of men. The group then began running into the desert surrounding his home. Once the group had fled, Mr. Kelly walked over to his barn to see if it was safe and secure.”
The filing notes Kelly had a second conversation with the Border Patrol ranch liaison that ended at approximately 2:36 p.m. Even though Kelly reported that he heard a single shot and that the men he had seen were armed, the liaison “incorrectly reported” that Kelly stated he could not tell whether the men were armed or not, Larkin wrote. The radio dispatch to the Border Patrol agents en route to the property at approximately 2:40 p.m. “correctly reported that armed men had been seen in the area.”
While Kelly was checking his barn, a number of Border Patrol and Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the property and encountered Kelly, who indicated to them that he had seen a group of armed men near his house, the filing says. Deputies also made contact with Kelly’s wife, who indicated that she had seen armed men carrying large backpacks near the house, Larkin wrote.
Border Patrol agents and sheriff’s deputies walked “all over” Kelly’s property but found no one, the filing says. They also used various cameras to try to locate the men but were unsuccessful. Law enforcement then left.
George Alan Kelly appeared in court on a first-degree murder charge. (Santa Cruz County Clerk of the Court)
As the sun was going down later that day, Kelly went to his pastures to check on his horse, still concerned the horse might have been injured in the incident. Noticing that the dogs he took with him were focused on something on the ground near a mesquite tree, Kelly approached the area and “observed a body lying face down in the grass,” Larkin wrote. He then called the Border Patrol ranch liaison a third time to report the discovery and request assistance from law enforcement.
When law enforcement arrived, Kelly helped them find the body and cooperated with their investigation, according to Larkin. The investigation found that the body was that of a male “foreign national” who did not have any firearms or backpack on his him. The cause of death appeared to be a single gunshot wound, and it appeared the body was fresh, according to the filing.
“The person [had] a radio with him, and he was wearing tactical boots, indicating he was possibly involved in illegal activity,” Larkin wrote.
The defense attorney added that it remains unknown what kind of bullet caused the fatal wound, what was the time of death, how long the body had been there or where and what position the person was in prior to receiving the fatal wounds.
A U.S. Border Patrol ranch liaison rides with a rancher near Nogales, Arizona. George Kelly’s attorney says he contacted the ranch liaison several times the day of the shooting, including to report the discovery of a body. (John Moore / Getty Images)
In an interview with law enforcement, Kelly “admitted to firing warning shots at the smugglers earlier in the day, but he denied firing any shot directly at any person,” Larkin wrote. “He does not believe that any of his warning shots could have possibly hit the person or caused the death. All of the shooting that Mr. Kelly did on that date of the incident was in self-defense and justified.”
Kelly and his wife have lived on their property outside Nogales, Arizona, for more than two decades. The Daily Mail previously reported that federal records show Cuen-Butimea “had a history of illegal border crossings and deportations in and around Nogales, with the most recent documented case in 2016.”
Judge Emilio Velasquez has not granted Kelly’s request for a reduction of his $1 million bond despite the rancher pleading that his wife was left alone on their property and unable to attend to their livestock. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 22 at Nogales Justice Court.
“Mr. Kelly’s … years as a law-abiding citizen, and the uncontroverted facts of the case, give us confidence in his innocence and in our ability to prove that innocence should the State continue to prosecute Mr. Kelly,” Larkin said in a statement Friday obtained by AZ Central.
GoFundMe booted all campaigns set up to raise money for Kelly, Fox News Digital previously confirmed. The Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo allowed a fundraiser for Kelly to remain. It has garnered about $250,000 as of midday Sunday.
Has Disney learned their lesson? More WOKE stories are on the way. Hopefully this is the first of many stories about companies that went WOKE and are now suffering because of it.
Disney will reduce its workforce by 7,000 employees in a bid to cut costs, Iger said Wednesday on the company’s earnings call for the year-end 2022 quarter. The figure represents 3.2% of Disney’s total headcount of about 220,000 worldwide as of Oct. 1, 2022.
The layoffs are part of Disney’s efforts to achieve about $5.5 billion in cost savings. Of that, $2.5 billion represents “non-content costs” (including labor costs) and $1 billion of those targeted cost-reductions are already underway, Iger said. Disney is aiming for an annualized reduction of $3 billion in non-sports content costs, expected to be realized over the next several years, Disney CFO Christine McCarthy told analysts.
One of their acts of desperation will be bringing back Tim Allen for Toy Story 5. Let’s see if they clean it up after the disastrously 4.
In 2021, Bill Gates called mRNA injections “game changers.” Contrast that with his latest statements, after turning his $55 million investment into $550 million, acknowledging the injections’ failures. What evil plan is he hatching next?
In 2019, Bill Gates invested $55 million in BioNtech – which developed the covid injection for Pfizer – it’s now worth $550 million.
Gates sold some of the stock at the end of 2022 when the share price was over $300. After reaping huge profits, Gates criticised covid injections, stating they don’t block infection, aren’t effective against variants and have “very short duration.”
Gates’ motivations run far deeper than making money off shrewd investments. By funding the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), Gates is able to ensure that the decisions it makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners. Gates – via collaborations with WHO, Anthony Fauci and others – is aiming to have absolute power to control pandemic declarations and responses worldwide.
The Hill: Bill Gates MRNA Grift EXPOSED? Billionaire TRASHES Jab Despite Reaping MASSIVE Profits, 25 January 2023 (9 mins)
In The Hill video above, Bill Gates trashes mRNA covid-19 injections, naming three problems with them that need to be fixed. “The current vaccines are not infection-blocking,” Gates says, “They’re not broad – so when new variants come up you lose protection – and they have very short duration, particularly in the people who matter, which are old people.”1
Covid-19 injections’ lack of efficacy and safety is not news, so why is this a remarkable statement coming from Gates? He’s been a major proponent of mRNA technology and invested heavily in BioNTech, which developed the covid-19 injection for Pfizer. He’s since sold a lot of those shares, earning a 10x profit.
Gates Reaps Windfall Profits From mRNA Injection Investment
As reported by The Hill’s co-host Briahna Joy Gray, Gates invested $55 million in BioNtech in 2019, and it’s now worth $550 million. He sold some of the stock at the end of 2022 when the share price was over $300 – representing a massive gain. Co-host Robby Soave then states:2
Let’s follow that trajectory: [Gates] invests heavily in BioNTech, “mRNA vaccines are great, this is the future,” he talks about the vaccine timeline and how we can develop it faster, “we might have to cut some corners on safety” … All in … sells it … makes a huge amount of money … but now it’s “yeah, it’s okay, it could be better, but what we really need is this breath spray.”
Soave is referring to a statement Gates made regarding a type of inhaler that could be used “very early in an epidemic” to block people from becoming infected.3 The glaring conflict of interest is only highlighted by Gates’ about-face regarding the injections.
In 2021, Gates called mRNA injections “magic” and “game changers.” He’s also said: “Everyone who takes the vaccine is not just protecting themselves but reducing their transmission to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.”4 Contrast that with his latest statements acknowledging the injections’ failures. Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel explained:5
Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who served as one of the architects of covid hysteria and had more of an impact than any other individual on the disastrous global pandemic policies, has finally acknowledged that the mRNA shots he’s been promoting for two years are nothing more than expired pharma junk.
Translation: Gates admits that the shots are impossible to align with rapidly developing variants, they expire in lightning speed, and they don’t stop transmission. And they don’t work for the only at-risk portion of the population.
Gates’ major reversal on the injections comes too late, however, as his prior praises were instrumental in dictating government policy, despite his massive financial conflicts of interest. Soave adds:
For there not to be more interrogation of his conflict of interest here by the mainstream is deeply disturbing, and for people who have been sceptical of this aspect of Pfizer and the drug development around covid and who have been shot down in the media as kooks, anti-vaxxers and the like.
I frankly think that this issue of pharmaceutical corruption and people pushing various interventions, having an investment in profit, should have been an issue that the left was leading on.
We have to be more transparent about the fact that people who are having input in what the government policy is going to be, what’s going to be required people, the Biden administration tried to require people to get this, shouldn’t it be known at least when there are hundreds of millions of dollars of financial interests at stake for the people advising this? And their tune changes as it follows the money!
Gates Games the WHO
Gates’ motivations run far deeper than making money off shrewd investments. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation remains a primary funder of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), as Gates contributes via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine alliance GAVI, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (“SAGE”), UNICEF and Rotary International.
In 2017, Politico wrote a highly-critical article about Gates’ undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:6
… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.
Indeed, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,” “The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial – albeit unelected – leader of the WHO.”7 And, in that role, Gates is able to ensure that the decisions the WHO makes end up profiting his own interests and those of his Big Pharma partners.
You may remember that, in 2019, Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored a novel coronavirus pandemic preparedness exercise shortly before the pandemic started.
The event, which took place on 18 October 2019 in New York, was called Event 201, and it included a detailed simulation of a coronavirus outbreak with a predicted global death toll of 65 million people within a span of 18 months.8
On 23 October 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and WHO co-hosted another exercise, this one dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” 9 which involved a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25) that primarily kills children.
So, we can already begin to predict what the next pandemic will revolve around, and with WHO aiming to have absolute power to control pandemic declarations and responses worldwide, it paves the way to usher in the next phases of The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Transhumanist Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, a top advisor to Klaus Schwab, owner and chairman of WEF, has spoken openly about WEF’s plan to gain control by “hacking organisms.”
“By hacking organisms,” Harari said, “[we] gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself. Because once you can hack something, you can usually also engineer it.”10 Soon, he says, some corporations and governments will be able to “systematically hack all the people.” And if they succeed in hacking life, he describes it as the “greatest revolution in biology since the beginning of life 4 billion years ago.”11
Covid-19 is instrumental in this plan, Harari says, as it propelled the public to accept privacy violations it would have otherwise rejected. “Covid is critical,” he says, “because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimise, total biometrics surveillance.”12
Undoubtedly, the plan is to connect everything together – your identification, personal finances via central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”), and medical and vaccination records. Gates has downplayed suggestions of biometric surveillance as conspiracy theories, however.
In an interview with Australian journalist Sarah Ferguson, Gates not only mentions “intentionally caused” pandemics13 – while maintaining that the covid-19 pandemic was “natural” – but also states he reported “false stories” and “people who highlight almost silly misinformation” to Big Tech.14
But while Gates tries to pass off people’s concerns about his undue influence over their health as a joke, there’s no shortage of evidence that he really is pulling strings, including via his collaborations with other key players, like Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Decades ago, Fauci and Gates formed an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise, which in 2021 culminated in a plan to inject every man, woman and child on the planet with an experimental covid-19 “vaccine.” Gates and Fauci’s collaboration are detailed in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s best-selling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci.” The video above summarises their joint scheme.
Gates Lies About Epstein Relationship
ABC News (Australia): Bill Gates complained to tech companies about ‘laughable’ covid-19 conspiracy theories, 31 January 2023 (13 mins)
While speaking with Ferguson, Gates also lies about his relationship with the now-infamous sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, stating they had dinner together and “that’s all.”15 However, media reports claim they met on multiple occasions and were in discussions about co-creating a charitable fund with seed money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase.
According to The Times, Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011: “His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing although it would not work for me.”
Epstein’s will even named Boris Nikolic – a Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific advisor to both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and who appears in the sole publicly known photo of Epstein and Gates’ 2011 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion – as the backup executor of Epstein’s estate.
It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker … But, as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest …
The already scarcely believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019 when it was reported that Epstein “Hoped to Seed the Human Race With His DNA.”
As The New York Times explained, Epstein’s plan to impregnate 20 women at a time at his New Mexico ranch in order to “seed the human race with his DNA” – plan he told to a number of the “scientific luminaries” he kept in his orbit – put a modern gloss on a very old idea.
Gates’ Relationship with Epstein Began Before 2011
There’s mainstream media articles from 2001 saying that Jeffrey Epstein made all his money from his business connections – to three men – and those three men are Leslie Wexner [former owner of Victoria’s Secret], Donald Trump and the third one is Bill Gates.
One example of the deep connection that actually existed between Epstein and Gates involves Melanie Walker, who is also involved with WEF:18,19
She was recruited by Epstein in 1992, allegedly as a Victoria’s Secret model, but there’s no evidence she ever actually modelled for Victoria’s Secret. He apparently was funding her education, hires her as his science advisor in the late ’90s and then a couple years after that, in the early 2000s, she becomes the science advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So if you’re going to apply to be science advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and your CV says my most recent experience is being the science advisor to Jeffrey Epstein, and you’re Bill Gates hiring your top science advisor, you would have to know who Jeffrey Epstein is and what kind of science he’s into.
Webb believes Gates is lying about his ties to Epstein not only to protect himself but also to protect Microsoft. “You also have, in the ’90s, Jeffrey Epstein flying around on planes to official Microsoft functions in Russia, apparently giving women to the chief technology officer who was very close to Bill Gates … all sorts of stuff going on there with Epstein and Microsoft,” Webb explained.20
Is the Narrative on Covid Injections Changing?
Gates’ negative remarks about the mRNA covid injections appear to be the start of a media trend exposing the injections’ risks and failures. The Wall Street Journal published a review detailing the “deceptive campaign for bivalent covid boosters,” stating they “fail to live up to their promise, but vaccine makers and experts keep pushing them.”21
Reports that Pfizer intends to mutate SARS-CoV-2 using gain-of-function processes, or directed evolution, have also been met with alarm and calls for a Congressional investigation.22 It’s possible the injections’ failures are becoming too great to cover up, leading to a gradual shift in the narrative, with a focus on preparing for future pandemics – one of Gates’ favourite topics.
Not content to stop with covid-19, Gates is intent on creating and distributing “standby tools” – i.e., more injections and drugs – globally to be prepared for the, apparently inevitable, next pandemic:23
So there’s a class that’s got measles in it, a class of flu, a class of coronavirus, and a fourth class, all of which we need to have standby tools, both antivirals and vaccines that can deal with those. It’s very doable. So on the tools front, we can be far more prepared.
Set up going after Trump. Former Vice President Mike Pence (Mandel Ngan/AP)
Phony prosecutor has no case on Mar-a Largo so he’s trying to build one on that to do about nothing rally back on January 6th.-2021.
I’m thinking that this is what’s going to happen. Since Trump had a legal right to the documents at Mar- a Largo and Biden had top secret documents illegally in various locations the investigations will go nowhere. Prosecutor will say something like this.
Joey boy is remorseful and had no idea how those documents got in those various places. Hollywood thinks Trump planted them so we’re investigating that. Joey boy did no wrong.
Trump claims he declassified the stolen documents so at this time we’re only looking into Hollywood’s claim that Trump planted them. We should be done in 2024 depending on who the Republican nominee for President is.
Then the Prosecutor will move on to January 6th. And we know how that one will go.
