• 💠Your saliva contains a key enzyme called the "Filtration Enzyme" that helps keep your teeth and gums healthy. This enzyme filters out harmful bacteria and acids while keeping the good stuff, making your mouth a cleaner and safer environment.

    As you age, the level of this enzyme drops, putting you at higher risk for dental issues. Exposure to hydrogen cyanide, found in some foods and even released by the bad bacteria in your mouth, can also weaken this enzyme.

    If the enzyme isn't effective, your mouth becomes a breeding ground for problems like cavities and gum disease. The good news is that you can restore and maintain the levels of the "Filtration Enzyme" to keep your teeth and gums healthy, all without needing a dentist or medication.

    That’s where DentaTonic comes in. It’s a powerful mix of enzymes and proteins that restores the natural filters of your mouth. It then gives them a boost and empowers them to not only clean but completely eliminate the toxic cyanides in your mouth, while speeding up the regeneration of teeth and gums.

    What to Expect From DentaTonic?
    🦷 Oral Health Boost
    🦷 Reduce The Damage By
    🦷 Hydrogen Cyanide
    🦷 Protection Against Infections
    🦷 Improves Oral Health
    🦷 Easy To Add In Routine
    🦷 Free Guides With Orders

    Over 67,300 satisfied customers

    Be sure to watch the following video for a full understanding!
    🟢 https://DentaTonic_Official
    🟢 https://DentaTonic_Official

    NOTE. If you want to сheck availability and order DentaTonic, just reload the page once and scroll down!!!
    💠Your saliva contains a key enzyme called the "Filtration Enzyme" that helps keep your teeth and gums healthy. This enzyme filters out harmful bacteria and acids while keeping the good stuff, making your mouth a cleaner and safer environment. As you age, the level of this enzyme drops, putting you at higher risk for dental issues. Exposure to hydrogen cyanide, found in some foods and even released by the bad bacteria in your mouth, can also weaken this enzyme. If the enzyme isn't effective, your mouth becomes a breeding ground for problems like cavities and gum disease. The good news is that you can restore and maintain the levels of the "Filtration Enzyme" to keep your teeth and gums healthy, all without needing a dentist or medication. That’s where DentaTonic comes in. It’s a powerful mix of enzymes and proteins that restores the natural filters of your mouth. It then gives them a boost and empowers them to not only clean but completely eliminate the toxic cyanides in your mouth, while speeding up the regeneration of teeth and gums. What to Expect From DentaTonic? 🦷 Oral Health Boost 🦷 Reduce The Damage By 🦷 Hydrogen Cyanide 🦷 Protection Against Infections 🦷 Improves Oral Health 🦷 Easy To Add In Routine 🦷 Free Guides With Orders Over 67,300 satisfied customers Be sure to watch the following video for a full understanding! 🟢 https://DentaTonic_Official 🟢 https://DentaTonic_Official NOTE. If you want to сheck availability and order DentaTonic, just reload the page once and scroll down!!!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1089 Views 0
  • How To Date Any Girl (Get 95% Commission/ Sale)
    Digital - Ebooks.
    Why is "How to Date Any Girl" the Best Option?
    Proven Techniques: Our methods have been tested and proven to work in real-life situations.
    Expert Author: The ebook is written by a dating expert with years of experience in the field.
    Science-backed Strategies: Our approach is based on the latest real life experiences of people dating girls.
    Money-Back Guarantee: We're confident you'll love this ebook. If you're not satisfied, we offer a 100% money-back guarantee.
    https://www.digistore24.com/redir/524168/sarafraz/
    How To Date Any Girl (Get 95% Commission/ Sale) Digital - Ebooks. Why is "How to Date Any Girl" the Best Option? Proven Techniques: Our methods have been tested and proven to work in real-life situations. Expert Author: The ebook is written by a dating expert with years of experience in the field. Science-backed Strategies: Our approach is based on the latest real life experiences of people dating girls. Money-Back Guarantee: We're confident you'll love this ebook. If you're not satisfied, we offer a 100% money-back guarantee. https://www.digistore24.com/redir/524168/sarafraz/
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2969 Views
  • Discover the incredible benefits of Pineal XT, a revolutionary supplement designed to enhance overall well-being and promote optimal brain function. Our customers rave about the positive impact Pineal XT has had on their lives, reporting increased mental clarity, improved focus, and heightened cognitive performance. Many have experienced a profound sense of relaxation and better sleep quality, attributing these positive changes to the unique blend of natural ingredients meticulously chosen to support a healthy pineal gland.

    Pineal XT has garnered widespread customer satisfaction due to its commitment to quality and efficacy. Users appreciate the science-backed formulation that combines potent ingredients to optimize pineal gland function, supporting overall mental and physical balance. With Pineal XT, customers have found a reliable solution to combat the stresses of modern life, unlocking their full cognitive potential and achieving a heightened sense of well-being. Join the countless satisfied customers who have made Pineal XT an essential part of their daily routine, and experience the transformative benefits for yourself. Elevate your mental performance and overall health with Pineal XT – your path to a brighter, more focused future awaits!
    Discover the incredible benefits of Pineal XT, a revolutionary supplement designed to enhance overall well-being and promote optimal brain function. Our customers rave about the positive impact Pineal XT has had on their lives, reporting increased mental clarity, improved focus, and heightened cognitive performance. Many have experienced a profound sense of relaxation and better sleep quality, attributing these positive changes to the unique blend of natural ingredients meticulously chosen to support a healthy pineal gland. Pineal XT has garnered widespread customer satisfaction due to its commitment to quality and efficacy. Users appreciate the science-backed formulation that combines potent ingredients to optimize pineal gland function, supporting overall mental and physical balance. With Pineal XT, customers have found a reliable solution to combat the stresses of modern life, unlocking their full cognitive potential and achieving a heightened sense of well-being. Join the countless satisfied customers who have made Pineal XT an essential part of their daily routine, and experience the transformative benefits for yourself. Elevate your mental performance and overall health with Pineal XT – your path to a brighter, more focused future awaits!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2818 Views
  • Does any Sane Person Believe Israel Complies with International Law? | VT Foreign Policy
    January 27, 2024
    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

    $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
    Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.

    On 24 January Parliament produced a rare treat where an MP held a Government minister to account over support for Israel’s appalling behaviour in Gaza and the Government’s attempts to cover up their own collusion.

    David Rutley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) was being quizzed by Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab). The verbatim report in Hansard speaks for itself so I’ll simply let it run.



    Zarah Sultana:

    I would like to talk about the Government’s response to Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza and about revelations that I believe should be a major news story…. They relate to recently released court documents that reveal that, from very early on in the war, the Foreign Office had major doubts about Israel’s compliance with international law — a fact the Government have hidden.

    The documents show that, on 10 November, just a month into the war, the Foreign Office had made an internal assessment of Israel’s compliance with international law and judged that “the volume of strikes, total death toll as a proportion of those who are children, raise serious concerns.”

    It went on to say that His Majesty’s Government’s “inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance with IHL poses significant policy risks.”
    However, those serious concerns were kept secret from Parliament and the public. Instead, Ministers continued to give reassurances about Israel’s commitment to international law. For example, just four days after that assessment was made, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield [Andrew Mitchell], in the main Chamber whether Israel had used British-made weapons for war crimes in Gaza. He replied that “the President of Israel…has made it clear that his country will abide by international humanitarian law”. —[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 523.]

    That was despite the fact that, as shown by these documents, his Department doubted the Israeli President’s words. The documents reveal that another assessment was made by the Foreign Office on 8 December, expressing “concerns regarding” Israel’s “commitment to comply with the obligation not to arbitrarily deny access to humanitarian assistance” and saying that it was “possible Israel’s actions” in relation to the provision of humanitarian relief “were a breach of International Humanitarian Law”.

    Those damning judgments were, again, not made public. Instead, Government Ministers continued to reassure the public about Israel’s commitment to international law, and they continue to do that.

    The documents show that, a few days after that assessment, the Foreign Secretary “decided he was satisfied there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law”. On that basis, he continued allowing arms sales to Israel, despite the fact that, according to our Government’s policy and international law, arms export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. That recommendation was accepted by the Business Secretary on 18 December, and arms sales to Israel were allowed to continue.

    When questioned about these matters at the Foreign Affairs Committee this month, the Foreign Secretary failed to disclose the fact that his Department had carried out a formal review of Israel’s compliance with international law, and he denied that he had made a ministerial decision about allowing arms sales to continue. Members will be unsurprised to learn that the Chair of that Committee is writing to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to clarify his comments.

    What does this tell us? First, it tells us that, early on in the war, the Foreign Office had serious concerns about Israel’s breaches of international law. Secondly, it tells us that Ministers hid that fact, pretending in Parliament and in the media that they had confidence in Israel’s commitment to international law. Thirdly, it tells us that we should have absolutely no confidence in the Government’s arms export licensing regime, which Ministers boast consists of “the toughest regulations anywhere in the world” [Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 565.] but which are clearly grossly inadequate.


    FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 18, 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
    To finish, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister.

    ⦁ Why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal that their Department had serious concerns about Israel’s behaviour from as early as 10 November? Was that because they wanted to give Israel the green light for its bombardment of Gaza and they thought that revealing this assessment would simply make that too hard?

    ⦁ Why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing with arms sales to Israel even though his Department had those concerns? Was it because this Government are too cowardly to stand up for international law, or is it because they do not care about international law when it does not suit them?

    ⦁ Finally, will the Government comply with their own rules and with international law and the basic humanity at the heart of it and stop arming Israeli war crimes?

    David Rutley:

    The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) raised important points. What I can say at this point — she will probably not be happy with the answer — is that Ministers review the advice they receive carefully and act consistently with that advice. We work hard and continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. As the Foreign Secretary outlined, we assess that Israel has the capability and commitment to comply with international humanitarian law, but we are also deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza. Too many civilians have been killed.

    Zarah Sultana:

    If there are concerns in the Foreign Office, as per the internal assessment, why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing to allow arms sales to Israel? That goes against our current policy, which is that where there is a risk that human rights violations will take place, we should not continue selling arms licences to countries.

    David Rutley:

    The Foreign Secretary outlined on 8 January that he has not received advice that Israel has breached international humanitarian law. On export licences, the UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that it is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. All our export licences are kept under careful and continual review, and we can amend, suspend or revoke extant licences or refuse new licence applications where they are inconsistent with the UK’s strategic export licensing criteria. It is important to note that, as I think hon. Members are aware, the regime is among the most rigorous and transparent in the world.

    On the topic of Israel and Gaza, a number of people talked about South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice. The Government believe that this development is not helpful, and we do not support it. As previously stated, we recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, and we do not believe that calling that genocide is the right approach. Ultimately, it is for the courts, not states, to decide on matters of genocide, and of course we will respect the role and independence of the ICJ.

    This encounter tells us at least four things.

    Saying that “Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law” is laughable given the apartheid state’s 75-year record of not complying.

    The Government still desperately clings to the belief that Israel has a right to defend itself against legitimate Palestinian armed resistance even after being told by the UN that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies”.



    If, after 3 months of hideous slaughter and devastation, the Foreign Secretary hadn’t detected brazen violations of international and humanitarian law by Israel he ought to be sent on a crash course on the subject – along with the rest of his ignorant colleagues.

    The British Government should hang their heads in shame for not supporting South Africa in bringing their case to the ICJ about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. After hearing the Court’s verdict they look like a very sad bunch of ‘Friends of Genocidists’.

    Stuart Littlewood
    27 January 2024

    Stuart Littlewood
    After working on jet fighters in the RAF Stuart became an industrial marketing specialist with manufacturing companies and consultancy firms. He also “indulged himself” as a newspaper columnist. In politics, he served as a Cambridgeshire county councilor and member of the Police Authority. Now retired he campaigns on various issues and contributes to several online news & opinion sites. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, he has produced two photo-documentary books – Paperturn-view.com.

    Also, check out Stuart’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper. It tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation and explains to me why the Zionists who control Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

    Stuart’s Very Latest Articles: 2023 – Present

    – Archived Articles: 2010-2015 – 2016-2022



    ATTENTION READERS

    We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
    In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

    About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
    Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/does-any-sane-person-believe-israel-complies-with-international-law/
    Does any Sane Person Believe Israel Complies with International Law? | VT Foreign Policy January 27, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. On 24 January Parliament produced a rare treat where an MP held a Government minister to account over support for Israel’s appalling behaviour in Gaza and the Government’s attempts to cover up their own collusion. David Rutley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) was being quizzed by Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab). The verbatim report in Hansard speaks for itself so I’ll simply let it run. Zarah Sultana: I would like to talk about the Government’s response to Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza and about revelations that I believe should be a major news story…. They relate to recently released court documents that reveal that, from very early on in the war, the Foreign Office had major doubts about Israel’s compliance with international law — a fact the Government have hidden. The documents show that, on 10 November, just a month into the war, the Foreign Office had made an internal assessment of Israel’s compliance with international law and judged that “the volume of strikes, total death toll as a proportion of those who are children, raise serious concerns.” It went on to say that His Majesty’s Government’s “inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance with IHL poses significant policy risks.” However, those serious concerns were kept secret from Parliament and the public. Instead, Ministers continued to give reassurances about Israel’s commitment to international law. For example, just four days after that assessment was made, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield [Andrew Mitchell], in the main Chamber whether Israel had used British-made weapons for war crimes in Gaza. He replied that “the President of Israel…has made it clear that his country will abide by international humanitarian law”. —[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 523.] That was despite the fact that, as shown by these documents, his Department doubted the Israeli President’s words. The documents reveal that another assessment was made by the Foreign Office on 8 December, expressing “concerns regarding” Israel’s “commitment to comply with the obligation not to arbitrarily deny access to humanitarian assistance” and saying that it was “possible Israel’s actions” in relation to the provision of humanitarian relief “were a breach of International Humanitarian Law”. Those damning judgments were, again, not made public. Instead, Government Ministers continued to reassure the public about Israel’s commitment to international law, and they continue to do that. The documents show that, a few days after that assessment, the Foreign Secretary “decided he was satisfied there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law”. On that basis, he continued allowing arms sales to Israel, despite the fact that, according to our Government’s policy and international law, arms export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. That recommendation was accepted by the Business Secretary on 18 December, and arms sales to Israel were allowed to continue. When questioned about these matters at the Foreign Affairs Committee this month, the Foreign Secretary failed to disclose the fact that his Department had carried out a formal review of Israel’s compliance with international law, and he denied that he had made a ministerial decision about allowing arms sales to continue. Members will be unsurprised to learn that the Chair of that Committee is writing to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to clarify his comments. What does this tell us? First, it tells us that, early on in the war, the Foreign Office had serious concerns about Israel’s breaches of international law. Secondly, it tells us that Ministers hid that fact, pretending in Parliament and in the media that they had confidence in Israel’s commitment to international law. Thirdly, it tells us that we should have absolutely no confidence in the Government’s arms export licensing regime, which Ministers boast consists of “the toughest regulations anywhere in the world” [Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 565.] but which are clearly grossly inadequate. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 18, 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo To finish, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister. ⦁ Why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal that their Department had serious concerns about Israel’s behaviour from as early as 10 November? Was that because they wanted to give Israel the green light for its bombardment of Gaza and they thought that revealing this assessment would simply make that too hard? ⦁ Why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing with arms sales to Israel even though his Department had those concerns? Was it because this Government are too cowardly to stand up for international law, or is it because they do not care about international law when it does not suit them? ⦁ Finally, will the Government comply with their own rules and with international law and the basic humanity at the heart of it and stop arming Israeli war crimes? David Rutley: The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) raised important points. What I can say at this point — she will probably not be happy with the answer — is that Ministers review the advice they receive carefully and act consistently with that advice. We work hard and continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. As the Foreign Secretary outlined, we assess that Israel has the capability and commitment to comply with international humanitarian law, but we are also deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza. Too many civilians have been killed. Zarah Sultana: If there are concerns in the Foreign Office, as per the internal assessment, why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing to allow arms sales to Israel? That goes against our current policy, which is that where there is a risk that human rights violations will take place, we should not continue selling arms licences to countries. David Rutley: The Foreign Secretary outlined on 8 January that he has not received advice that Israel has breached international humanitarian law. On export licences, the UK supports Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that it is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. All our export licences are kept under careful and continual review, and we can amend, suspend or revoke extant licences or refuse new licence applications where they are inconsistent with the UK’s strategic export licensing criteria. It is important to note that, as I think hon. Members are aware, the regime is among the most rigorous and transparent in the world. On the topic of Israel and Gaza, a number of people talked about South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice. The Government believe that this development is not helpful, and we do not support it. As previously stated, we recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, and we do not believe that calling that genocide is the right approach. Ultimately, it is for the courts, not states, to decide on matters of genocide, and of course we will respect the role and independence of the ICJ. This encounter tells us at least four things. Saying that “Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law” is laughable given the apartheid state’s 75-year record of not complying. The Government still desperately clings to the belief that Israel has a right to defend itself against legitimate Palestinian armed resistance even after being told by the UN that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies”. If, after 3 months of hideous slaughter and devastation, the Foreign Secretary hadn’t detected brazen violations of international and humanitarian law by Israel he ought to be sent on a crash course on the subject – along with the rest of his ignorant colleagues. The British Government should hang their heads in shame for not supporting South Africa in bringing their case to the ICJ about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. After hearing the Court’s verdict they look like a very sad bunch of ‘Friends of Genocidists’. Stuart Littlewood 27 January 2024 Stuart Littlewood After working on jet fighters in the RAF Stuart became an industrial marketing specialist with manufacturing companies and consultancy firms. He also “indulged himself” as a newspaper columnist. In politics, he served as a Cambridgeshire county councilor and member of the Police Authority. Now retired he campaigns on various issues and contributes to several online news & opinion sites. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, he has produced two photo-documentary books – Paperturn-view.com. Also, check out Stuart’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper. It tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation and explains to me why the Zionists who control Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court. Stuart’s Very Latest Articles: 2023 – Present – Archived Articles: 2010-2015 – 2016-2022 ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/does-any-sane-person-believe-israel-complies-with-international-law/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    Does any Sane Person Believe Israel Complies with International Law?
    On 24 January Parliament produced a rare treat where an MP held a Government minister to account over support for Israel's appalling behaviour in Gaza and the Government's attempts to cover up their own collusion. David Rutley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) was being quizzed by Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab). The...
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8033 Views
  • CO2 Is Not a Pollutant
    The video above, “CO2, The Gas of Life,” features a lecture given at the Summit Old Guard Meeting in New Jersey, October 3, 2023, by William Happer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of physics at Princeton University and former scientific adviser to the Bush and Trump administrations.

    The topic: carbon dioxide (CO2), commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and a pollutant that is disrupting the planetary climate. As explained by Happer in this lecture, CO2 is actually an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double.

    At present, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at a few thousand feet of elevation is around 430 parts per million (ppm). Closer to the ground, concentrations vary widely, both by location and time of day. This is because ground-level readings are impacted by photosynthesis and the respiration of insects and the like.

    In the room where Happer was giving his lecture, the CO2 reading was 1,800 ppm — the result of having a large group of people breathing in a closed space. Air conditioning systems have CO2 meters that turn on fans to bring outdoor air inside when levels get too high.

    The question of what is too high is an important one, considering The Great Resetters are pushing a green agenda that demands the dismantling of energy infrastructure and farming in the name of stopping climate change, which quite obviously threatens our quality of life and food supply. Ultimately, it may threaten human existence altogether.

    The fact of the matter is that CO2 is not the “bad guy” it’s made out to be, and the “net zero” agenda is wholly inappropriate if maintaining life on Earth is part of the equation.

    “CO2 is a very essential and natural part of life,” Happer says. “It is the gas of life. We’re made of carbon after all, mostly carbon, and we breathe out a lot of CO2 a day just by living. Each of us breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 a day. Multiply that by 8 billion people and 365 days a year, and just [by] living, people are a non-negligible part of the CO2 budget of the Earth.

    Nevertheless, we are living through a crusade against so-called pollutant CO2. People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting ... apparently God wants us to commit suicide ...

    We're doing all sorts of crazy things because of this alleged pollutant ... more and more beautiful meadows are being covered with black solar panels. It doesn't work very well; it doesn't work at all at night. It doesn't work on cloudy days. It doesn't work terribly well in the middle of the winter because of the angle of the sun.

    But nevertheless we're doing it. We’re being misled into climate hysteria, and if you haven't read this book, I highly recommend it. It was published first in 1841, called ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’ It’s as relevant today as it was then ...

    I'm a physicist. I'm proud to say that no one could call me a climate scientist, but I know a lot about climate and I was a coauthor of one of the first books on the effects of carbon dioxide 41 years ago. This was a study done by the Jason Group which I was a member of. I was chairman for a while and it had really good people there.”

    Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2

    The key question when it comes to global warming is, how much do you warm the Earth if you double the atmospheric CO2 concentration? This is called the climate sensitivity question. The GUESS is that doubling CO2 would result in a 3-degree centigrade rise in the global temperature.

    “It was not based on any hard calculations,” Happer says. “It was because of group-think. That's what everybody else thought, and so that's what we thought. Now, in my defense, one of the reasons I didn't pay much attention to this [is because] I was working on something at this time that I thought was much more important. So, let me tell you about that, so you get a feeling for why I think I'm qualified to pontificate about this subject.

    It was the beginning of the Strategic Defense Initiative, of Star Wars ... President Reagan ... wanted some way to defend the United States so that we didn't have to have this mass suicide pact, and among other things we considered using high-powered lasers to burn up incoming missiles ...

    But here's the problem. If you take the 1 megawatt laser on the ground and you send it toward the missile, by the time it gets to the missile, the beam — instead of focusing all the power on the missile — breaks up into hundreds of sub beams — speckles — and this was something that was well-known to astronomers. You have the same problem when you're looking at distant stars and galaxies.

    Astronomers knew how to fix this ... If you can measure how much this wave is bent, then you can bounce it off a mirror bent in the opposite direction, and when the wave bounces up it's absolutely flat. That's called adaptive optics and it works beautifully. Then, when you focus the corrected beam, you get a single spot instead of hundreds of [beams].

    The trouble with that is that if you look at the night sky, there are only four or five stars that are bright enough to have enough photons to do the measurement of the distortion of the wave. So, we had a classified meeting in the summer of 1982. There were a number of Air Force officers there who explained the problem. By chance, I knew how to solve it.

    You can make an artificial star anywhere in the sky by shining a laser tuned to the sodium frequency onto the layer of sodium above our heads, at 90 to 100 kilometers.”

    While the Air Force was initially dubious about there being a sodium layer in the atmosphere, they did eventually build the sodium laser proposed by Happer, and if you go to any ground-based telescope today, you'll usually see one or two of them. Anyway, that story was simply to impress you with the fact that Happer knows what he’s talking about when it comes to atmospheric constituents and their related phenomena.

    CO2 Has No Discernible Impact on Earth Temperatures

    According to the climate alarmists, rising CO2 will result in global warming that will threaten all life on earth. In actuality, however, CO2 “is a very puny tool to do anything to the climate,” Happer says.

    Keep in mind that there’s no single temperature on the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C. This is known as the lapse rate. That cooling continues up to the troposphere, where it stops.

    The cooling is due to the fact that warm air rises and cool air descends. “It’s the convection that sets that rapid drop of temperatures — 6-and-a-half degrees per kilometer,” Happer says. He then explains the following graph, which details the thermal radiation to space from the Earth, assuming a surface temperature of 15.5 degrees C. The greenhouse gases is the area beneath the jagged black curve.

    According to Happer, this is only 70% of what it would be without greenhouse gases, which is shown as the smooth blue curve, because as the sun heats the earth, greenhouse gases — mostly water vapor — impede cooling.

    The most important part of this graph is the red jagged line, shown here with a red arrow pointing to it. That red line shows the effect that a doubling (a 100% increase) of CO2 would have on the surface temperature of Earth. As you can see, it’s negligible. It decreases radiation into space by just 1.1%.

    As noted by Happer:

    “Let that sink in. We’re far from doubling [CO2] today. It'll take a long time, [and] it only causes a 1% change. So, CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas. It's not an efficient greenhouse gas.”

    If you remove ALL CO2, you end up with the green jagged curve. As you can see, the green and black jagged lines run parallel with the exception of one spot. There’s a huge effect if you go from zero CO2 to 400 ppm (green arrow). But it’s again negligible when you go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm (black arrow). As explained by Happer:

    “You get all of the effect in the first little bit of added CO2 ... So, it's really true that doubling CO2 only causes a 1% decrease of radiation. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] gets the same answer so this is not really controversial, although they will never show you the curve or tell you that it's 1%. That would interfere with the narrative ...

    So, this is radiation to space. How do you change that into a temperature? They're worried that we'll get intolerable warming of the surface of the Earth where we live, or other parts of the atmosphere.

    Here again it's important to do the first order calculation ... and it says that the warming from doubling CO2 is ... less than one degree ... 0.7 [degree] C. Very small. You really can’t feel that.”

    Why, Then, the Alarm Over Rising CO2?

    Needless to say, this is a huge problem for the climate science community, because a 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions, it’s not going to impact the climate.

    So, to fabricate an emergency where there really is none, the IPCC “assumes enormous positive feedbacks,” Happer says. Because CO2 is not a potent greenhouse gas, the tiny direct warming caused by it is amplified by factors of anywhere from four to six to make it seem like it has a discernible impact.

    “I like to say it's affirmative action for CO2,” Happer says. “It’s not very good at warming but if you assume lots of feedback, you can keep the money coming in.” The problem with that is that most who have a background in physical chemistry and physics know that most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive.

    “The 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO2 is probably an overestimate, because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in.” ~ William Happer, Ph.D.

    This is known as the Chatelier Principle, named after the French chemist who first discovered that “when a simple system in thermodynamic equilibrium is subjected to a change in concentration, temperature, volume or pressure ... the system changes to a new equilibrium and ... the change partly counteracts the applied change.”

    So, the 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO2 is “probably an overestimate,” Happer says, “because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything is nonlinear.”

    The key take-home from all this is that whether we’re at 400 ppm of CO2 or 800 ppm doesn’t matter when it comes to impacting the temperature of the earth. In short, the climate hysteria is just that. It’s not based on any real threat. Only if we were able to get to absolute zero CO2 would there be a change, but doing so also means we’d exterminate all living things on the planet. It’s nothing short of a suicide agenda.

    More CO2 Will Green the Planet

    As explained by Happer, more CO2 will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO2 there is, the better plants and trees grow, so if we want lush forests and bountiful harvests, cutting CO2 is the last thing we’d want to do.

    “All plants grow better with more CO2 [in the air],” he says. “Plants are really starved [of] CO2 today. We know plants need many essential nutrients. They need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium; most important of all they need water. But they also need CO2, and like many of the other nutrients, CO2 today is in short supply.”

    CO2 benefits plants by reducing their water needs, hence less risk from drought. Higher CO2 levels also reduce harmful photorespiration. According to Happer, C3-type plants lose about 25% of their photosynthesis potential due to increased photorespiration. For more in-depth information about the role of CO2 in plant growth and photosynthesis, please view the video. This discussion begins around the 40-minute mark.

    Lies, Ignorance, Stupidity or Something Else?

    In closing, Happer makes an effort to explain what’s driving the climate hysteria:

    “In spite of incontrovertible arguments that there is no climate emergency — CO2 is good for the Earth — the campaign to banish CO2, ‘net zero,’ has been very successful. So, how can that be? I’m really out of my depth here because now I'm talking about human nature. I'm really good with instruments and with solving differential equations but I'm not very good at understanding human beings.

    But here are some of the drivers: noble lies, political lies, ignorance, stupidity, greed. Noble lies goes back to Plato who discusses it in ‘The Republic.’ ‘In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.’

    And here there's a clear agenda. If you could somehow unite mankind to fight some external threat, for example CO2 pollution, then we won't fight each other. There won't be wars. So, I think many sincere people have latched on to the CO2 narrative partly for that reason. You can actually read about it in the early writings of the Club of Rome.

    Then there are political lies. This is one my favorite H.L. Menken quotes: ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’”

    Ignorance, of course, is widespread, and largely based on incomplete knowledge or a flawed understanding of the facts. And what of stupidity? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few German clergymen who opposed Hitler and eventually paid for his public dissent with his life, once wrote about human stupidity:

    “Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protest nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions.

    So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one.”

    Happer himself has experienced the danger of opposing stupidity. “I regularly get phone calls threatening me, my wife and children with death,” he says. “So, what kind of movement is this?” Lastly, greed. A.S. Pushkin once said, “If there should happen to be a trough, there will be pigs.” And climate science is currently where the big bucks are — provided your work furthers the global warming narrative and the need for net zero emissions.

    Whatever the drivers are, responsible people everywhere need to push back against the false climate change narrative and the net zero agenda, as it will accomplish nothing in terms of normalizing temperatures, but will rapidly erode quality of life and the sustainability of food production, and shift wealth into the hands of the few.

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/01/27/carbon-dioxide.aspx
    CO2 Is Not a Pollutant The video above, “CO2, The Gas of Life,” features a lecture given at the Summit Old Guard Meeting in New Jersey, October 3, 2023, by William Happer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of physics at Princeton University and former scientific adviser to the Bush and Trump administrations. The topic: carbon dioxide (CO2), commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and a pollutant that is disrupting the planetary climate. As explained by Happer in this lecture, CO2 is actually an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double. At present, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at a few thousand feet of elevation is around 430 parts per million (ppm). Closer to the ground, concentrations vary widely, both by location and time of day. This is because ground-level readings are impacted by photosynthesis and the respiration of insects and the like. In the room where Happer was giving his lecture, the CO2 reading was 1,800 ppm — the result of having a large group of people breathing in a closed space. Air conditioning systems have CO2 meters that turn on fans to bring outdoor air inside when levels get too high. The question of what is too high is an important one, considering The Great Resetters are pushing a green agenda that demands the dismantling of energy infrastructure and farming in the name of stopping climate change, which quite obviously threatens our quality of life and food supply. Ultimately, it may threaten human existence altogether. The fact of the matter is that CO2 is not the “bad guy” it’s made out to be, and the “net zero” agenda is wholly inappropriate if maintaining life on Earth is part of the equation. “CO2 is a very essential and natural part of life,” Happer says. “It is the gas of life. We’re made of carbon after all, mostly carbon, and we breathe out a lot of CO2 a day just by living. Each of us breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 a day. Multiply that by 8 billion people and 365 days a year, and just [by] living, people are a non-negligible part of the CO2 budget of the Earth. Nevertheless, we are living through a crusade against so-called pollutant CO2. People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting ... apparently God wants us to commit suicide ... We're doing all sorts of crazy things because of this alleged pollutant ... more and more beautiful meadows are being covered with black solar panels. It doesn't work very well; it doesn't work at all at night. It doesn't work on cloudy days. It doesn't work terribly well in the middle of the winter because of the angle of the sun. But nevertheless we're doing it. We’re being misled into climate hysteria, and if you haven't read this book, I highly recommend it. It was published first in 1841, called ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’ It’s as relevant today as it was then ... I'm a physicist. I'm proud to say that no one could call me a climate scientist, but I know a lot about climate and I was a coauthor of one of the first books on the effects of carbon dioxide 41 years ago. This was a study done by the Jason Group which I was a member of. I was chairman for a while and it had really good people there.” Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 The key question when it comes to global warming is, how much do you warm the Earth if you double the atmospheric CO2 concentration? This is called the climate sensitivity question. The GUESS is that doubling CO2 would result in a 3-degree centigrade rise in the global temperature. “It was not based on any hard calculations,” Happer says. “It was because of group-think. That's what everybody else thought, and so that's what we thought. Now, in my defense, one of the reasons I didn't pay much attention to this [is because] I was working on something at this time that I thought was much more important. So, let me tell you about that, so you get a feeling for why I think I'm qualified to pontificate about this subject. It was the beginning of the Strategic Defense Initiative, of Star Wars ... President Reagan ... wanted some way to defend the United States so that we didn't have to have this mass suicide pact, and among other things we considered using high-powered lasers to burn up incoming missiles ... But here's the problem. If you take the 1 megawatt laser on the ground and you send it toward the missile, by the time it gets to the missile, the beam — instead of focusing all the power on the missile — breaks up into hundreds of sub beams — speckles — and this was something that was well-known to astronomers. You have the same problem when you're looking at distant stars and galaxies. Astronomers knew how to fix this ... If you can measure how much this wave is bent, then you can bounce it off a mirror bent in the opposite direction, and when the wave bounces up it's absolutely flat. That's called adaptive optics and it works beautifully. Then, when you focus the corrected beam, you get a single spot instead of hundreds of [beams]. The trouble with that is that if you look at the night sky, there are only four or five stars that are bright enough to have enough photons to do the measurement of the distortion of the wave. So, we had a classified meeting in the summer of 1982. There were a number of Air Force officers there who explained the problem. By chance, I knew how to solve it. You can make an artificial star anywhere in the sky by shining a laser tuned to the sodium frequency onto the layer of sodium above our heads, at 90 to 100 kilometers.” While the Air Force was initially dubious about there being a sodium layer in the atmosphere, they did eventually build the sodium laser proposed by Happer, and if you go to any ground-based telescope today, you'll usually see one or two of them. Anyway, that story was simply to impress you with the fact that Happer knows what he’s talking about when it comes to atmospheric constituents and their related phenomena. CO2 Has No Discernible Impact on Earth Temperatures According to the climate alarmists, rising CO2 will result in global warming that will threaten all life on earth. In actuality, however, CO2 “is a very puny tool to do anything to the climate,” Happer says. Keep in mind that there’s no single temperature on the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C. This is known as the lapse rate. That cooling continues up to the troposphere, where it stops. The cooling is due to the fact that warm air rises and cool air descends. “It’s the convection that sets that rapid drop of temperatures — 6-and-a-half degrees per kilometer,” Happer says. He then explains the following graph, which details the thermal radiation to space from the Earth, assuming a surface temperature of 15.5 degrees C. The greenhouse gases is the area beneath the jagged black curve. According to Happer, this is only 70% of what it would be without greenhouse gases, which is shown as the smooth blue curve, because as the sun heats the earth, greenhouse gases — mostly water vapor — impede cooling. The most important part of this graph is the red jagged line, shown here with a red arrow pointing to it. That red line shows the effect that a doubling (a 100% increase) of CO2 would have on the surface temperature of Earth. As you can see, it’s negligible. It decreases radiation into space by just 1.1%. As noted by Happer: “Let that sink in. We’re far from doubling [CO2] today. It'll take a long time, [and] it only causes a 1% change. So, CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas. It's not an efficient greenhouse gas.” If you remove ALL CO2, you end up with the green jagged curve. As you can see, the green and black jagged lines run parallel with the exception of one spot. There’s a huge effect if you go from zero CO2 to 400 ppm (green arrow). But it’s again negligible when you go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm (black arrow). As explained by Happer: “You get all of the effect in the first little bit of added CO2 ... So, it's really true that doubling CO2 only causes a 1% decrease of radiation. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] gets the same answer so this is not really controversial, although they will never show you the curve or tell you that it's 1%. That would interfere with the narrative ... So, this is radiation to space. How do you change that into a temperature? They're worried that we'll get intolerable warming of the surface of the Earth where we live, or other parts of the atmosphere. Here again it's important to do the first order calculation ... and it says that the warming from doubling CO2 is ... less than one degree ... 0.7 [degree] C. Very small. You really can’t feel that.” Why, Then, the Alarm Over Rising CO2? Needless to say, this is a huge problem for the climate science community, because a 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions, it’s not going to impact the climate. So, to fabricate an emergency where there really is none, the IPCC “assumes enormous positive feedbacks,” Happer says. Because CO2 is not a potent greenhouse gas, the tiny direct warming caused by it is amplified by factors of anywhere from four to six to make it seem like it has a discernible impact. “I like to say it's affirmative action for CO2,” Happer says. “It’s not very good at warming but if you assume lots of feedback, you can keep the money coming in.” The problem with that is that most who have a background in physical chemistry and physics know that most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive. “The 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO2 is probably an overestimate, because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in.” ~ William Happer, Ph.D. This is known as the Chatelier Principle, named after the French chemist who first discovered that “when a simple system in thermodynamic equilibrium is subjected to a change in concentration, temperature, volume or pressure ... the system changes to a new equilibrium and ... the change partly counteracts the applied change.” So, the 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO2 is “probably an overestimate,” Happer says, “because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything is nonlinear.” The key take-home from all this is that whether we’re at 400 ppm of CO2 or 800 ppm doesn’t matter when it comes to impacting the temperature of the earth. In short, the climate hysteria is just that. It’s not based on any real threat. Only if we were able to get to absolute zero CO2 would there be a change, but doing so also means we’d exterminate all living things on the planet. It’s nothing short of a suicide agenda. More CO2 Will Green the Planet As explained by Happer, more CO2 will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO2 there is, the better plants and trees grow, so if we want lush forests and bountiful harvests, cutting CO2 is the last thing we’d want to do. “All plants grow better with more CO2 [in the air],” he says. “Plants are really starved [of] CO2 today. We know plants need many essential nutrients. They need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium; most important of all they need water. But they also need CO2, and like many of the other nutrients, CO2 today is in short supply.” CO2 benefits plants by reducing their water needs, hence less risk from drought. Higher CO2 levels also reduce harmful photorespiration. According to Happer, C3-type plants lose about 25% of their photosynthesis potential due to increased photorespiration. For more in-depth information about the role of CO2 in plant growth and photosynthesis, please view the video. This discussion begins around the 40-minute mark. Lies, Ignorance, Stupidity or Something Else? In closing, Happer makes an effort to explain what’s driving the climate hysteria: “In spite of incontrovertible arguments that there is no climate emergency — CO2 is good for the Earth — the campaign to banish CO2, ‘net zero,’ has been very successful. So, how can that be? I’m really out of my depth here because now I'm talking about human nature. I'm really good with instruments and with solving differential equations but I'm not very good at understanding human beings. But here are some of the drivers: noble lies, political lies, ignorance, stupidity, greed. Noble lies goes back to Plato who discusses it in ‘The Republic.’ ‘In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.’ And here there's a clear agenda. If you could somehow unite mankind to fight some external threat, for example CO2 pollution, then we won't fight each other. There won't be wars. So, I think many sincere people have latched on to the CO2 narrative partly for that reason. You can actually read about it in the early writings of the Club of Rome. Then there are political lies. This is one my favorite H.L. Menken quotes: ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’” Ignorance, of course, is widespread, and largely based on incomplete knowledge or a flawed understanding of the facts. And what of stupidity? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few German clergymen who opposed Hitler and eventually paid for his public dissent with his life, once wrote about human stupidity: “Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protest nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one.” Happer himself has experienced the danger of opposing stupidity. “I regularly get phone calls threatening me, my wife and children with death,” he says. “So, what kind of movement is this?” Lastly, greed. A.S. Pushkin once said, “If there should happen to be a trough, there will be pigs.” And climate science is currently where the big bucks are — provided your work furthers the global warming narrative and the need for net zero emissions. Whatever the drivers are, responsible people everywhere need to push back against the false climate change narrative and the net zero agenda, as it will accomplish nothing in terms of normalizing temperatures, but will rapidly erode quality of life and the sustainability of food production, and shift wealth into the hands of the few. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/01/27/carbon-dioxide.aspx
    ARTICLES.MERCOLA.COM
    The Importance of Carbon Dioxide for Life
    Carbon dioxide is commonly mischaracterized as a waste product of respiration, but it's actually necessary for life to flourish.
    Haha
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 12817 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two
    Debbie Lerman
    In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

    I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with

    no binding legal standards,
    no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and
    no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms.
    In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway

    The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract.

    It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.”

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use.

    If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down:

    Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects

    This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces.

    According to the DARPA website,

    The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs.

    These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production.

    Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply:

    Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.”
    OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.”
    So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use.

    Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines?

    The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.”

    This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN).

    What Other OTA Laws Might Apply?

    The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities:


    According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e.

    Where is this law housed and what does it say?

    The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities

    So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing.

    The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority

    with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly—

    (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and

    (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight.

    HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws

    To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular:

    OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing.
    The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing.
    Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety.
    In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products.

    So what did HHS do?

    As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24)

    What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products?

    As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.”

    But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced:

    In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration]

    As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg.

    The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].”

    Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS.

    While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.”

    Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all.

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

    Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers:

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents.

    With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria).

    It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents.

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health,

    Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.

    The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued:

    a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;
    a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with—
    a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or
    an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;
    a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or
    the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.
    Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.”

    Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent?

    If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway:

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions

    So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime.

    Wikipedia provides this definition:

    A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW).

    On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines?

    It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen.

    Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines.

    Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was

    C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.

    When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded:

    the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…

    There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.”

    It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists.

    Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases.

    Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization

    Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements:

    Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition
    For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

    NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime.

    Evidence of Effectiveness
    Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b).

    The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals?

    Risk-Benefit Analysis
    A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

    In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge.

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.”

    No Alternatives
    For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.

    LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal?

    Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines:

    I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because:

    SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus;
    Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and
    There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

    NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19.

    There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19.

    THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced.

    If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims?

    Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products

    Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation.

    Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this:

    FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must:

    (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information;

    (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information;

    (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and

    (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer.

    LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization?

    NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports.

    EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway

    As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment.

    Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use.

    The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures.


    Comparison of Access Mechanisms
    This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board.

    Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28:

    It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process.

    Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS?

    Conclusion

    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.

    Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required.

    Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications?

    I hope so.

    Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind.

    Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued:

    The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency.

    This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two Debbie Lerman In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract. It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” [BOLDFACE ADDED] A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use. If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down: Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces. According to the DARPA website, The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production. Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply: Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.” OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.” So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use. Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines? The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.” This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN). What Other OTA Laws Might Apply? The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities: According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e. Where is this law housed and what does it say? The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing. The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly— (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title. [BOLDFACE ADDED] The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight. HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products? As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.” But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced: In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration] As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg. The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].” Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS. While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers: Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria). It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent? If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway: Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime. Wikipedia provides this definition: A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents. When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)… There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases. Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements: Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime. Evidence of Effectiveness Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b). The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals? Risk-Benefit Analysis A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.” No Alternatives For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal? Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines: I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus; Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. [BOLDFACE ADDED] NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19. There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19. THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced. If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims? Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation. Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this: FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must: (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information; (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information; (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization? NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports. EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment. Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use. The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. Comparison of Access Mechanisms This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board. Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28: It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS? Conclusion It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population. Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required. Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications? I hope so. Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind. Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued: The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency. This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9959 Views
  • Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour
    The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment.

    World Council for Health
    Written by World Council for Health Correspondent Alice Ashwell, PhD.


    They say that you pick up the most flack when you’re right over the target.

    Since the Covid phenomenon began, the degree of flack has become a navigational aid in the pursuit of Truth. Wikipedia’s hit piece on the World Council for Health (WCH) is evidence that their message of health sovereignty has become a threat to the establishment.

    Brainwashing goes global

    Ever more brazenly over the past four years, members of the ‘Great Reset Establishment’ have been involved in a process of what Psychoanalyst Dr Bruce Scott calls ‘menticide’, or brainwashing on a global scale. Through the unethical use of applied psychology, governments, corporations, and organisations around the world have been manipulating the masses into compliance with their globalist agenda.

    Whether the issue has been Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, economic meltdown, or climate hysteria, the outcome has been an environment of heightened fear and uncertainty. People seeking direction have been subjected to unprecedented levels of propaganda and censorship, which have added to the confusion by creating a ‘through-the-looking-glass’ world in which it feels like truths have become lies, and vice versa.

    If this content is important to you, please share it with your network.

    Share

    Wikipedia - no longer reliable

    One of the ‘trusted’ sources we have become accustomed to turning to when seeking information on a host of topics is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This online encyclopedia was established in 2001 with the aim of being a free, open, and neutral source of information that anyone could access and edit. The idea was that all sides of controversial issues would be welcomed and readers would be left to make up their own minds. But, as Wikipedia co-founder-turned-critic Larry Sanger complained in an interview with Glenn Greenwald in July 2023, “It didn’t work out that way.”

    Over time, the platform has moved away from its non-negotiable editorial policy that content should strive to reflect a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV). As Kristin Heflin described in her PhD thesis in 2010, this means that:

    … all Wikipedia content must represent―fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By insisting articles represent [―] all significant views without bias, the policy of striving for NPOV shares similarities with objectivity … (p. 89)

    In 2015, Heather Ford observed in her D. Phil. Thesis that Wikipedia was by that time offering “a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others” (p. 3). She continued:

    Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented.

    This means that Wikipedia is able to decide which facts are stabilised or destabilised on its platform, according to the ideological positions of its editors. While Wikipedia originally provided the opportunity for people to publish without the need for gatekeepers or mediators, this is no longer the case. Especially since the Covid-19 event boosted the fortunes of the Censorship Industrial Complex, Wikipedians have become foot soldiers in the battle to scrub from the Internet information they consider to be mis-, dis-, or mal-information.

    Larry Sanger, in the interview mentioned above, described how he has watched Wikipedia’s neutrality evaporate over the years, shifting around 2005 to establishment views on topics like global warming and certain drugs, and starting to show bias against holistic medicine in the early 2010s. Its reliable sources of information are now left-of-centre media corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, while in their policies 80% of news sources on the right are deemed unreliable. Independent news outlets and self-published subject experts are also not able to edit a Wikipedia page. Before it is deemed acceptable, information needs to be filtered through a mainstream news source, which in turn is constrained by fact-checking services.

    Misrepresenting Covid dissidents

    The World Council for Health (WCH) is one of many organisations and individuals who have been defamed by Wikipedia since the advent of Covid-19. As discussed at the WCH’s 83rd General Assembly meeting in April 2023, this has been part of a much broader strategy to silence dissent with regard to the so-called pandemic and its protocols.

    WCH was established to challenge the official Covid response and its Wikipedia article was created in September 2022. The current Wikipedia entry is fairly close to the original version, although it has been edited a number of times. However, a number of Wikipedia pages created prior to Covid-19 have been completely amended since 2020, resulting in a ‘hero-to-zero’ fall from grace for people such as the author Dr Vernon Coleman (compare his October 2019 entry with the current article), and the early developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert Malone, whose role in this invention has been deleted from the page on mRNA vaccines.



    https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/fact-checkers-independent-media/
    Who’s fact-checking the fact-checkers? A trio of independent media creators—Derrick Broze, Jason Bassler & Joe Martino—reveal their eye-opening shared experience in dealing with fact-checkers and censorship dating back years before Covid-19 emerged.


    Scarcely worth commenting on … but we shall!

    Let’s take a look at the WCH Wikipedia article (accessed 18 December 2023) to see just how deeply flawed and factually incorrect it is.

    Firstly, the content – comprising just eight paragraphs – is entirely inadequate. Other than stating that the organisation “appears to have been formed in September 2021” [emphasis mine], and that it was “founded by Jennifer A. Hibberd and Tess Lawrie”, nothing substantive is mentioned about what WCH is or what it does, despite its goals, values, and initiatives being clearly represented on its website and social media channels.

    Secondly, most of the article attempts to smear WCH by association. The bulk of the content refers to people or organisations who are part of the broader health freedom network but neither WCH staff nor council members, including Robert F Kennedy Jr of Children’s Health Defense and esteemed cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra. Wikipedia maligns these experts for their efforts to cancel the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 gene therapies which, contrary to the protestations of the fact-checkers, have caused millions of deaths worldwide. Ironically, Wikipedia accuses Dr Malhotra of “cherry-picking” sources to substantiate his concerns about the jab, yet they themselves cherry-pick tangential content and questionable opinions from, with only two exceptions, rather dubious sources.

    So, thirdly, let’s have a look at the references Wikipedia uses to back up its potentially libelous statements.

    The reference to Kerr et. al (March 2022) is simply a brief Erratum, noting that some of the authors of the paper quoted were using ivermectin to treat patients, which one would expect as they were reporting on its efficacy.

    The flawed Cochrane Review by Popp et. al (2022) that criticised a systematic review by Bryant et. al (2021) on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19 was thoroughly debunked in a letter sent to them by Fordham and colleagues in September 2021, but this has not been acknowledged on Wikipedia. The Bryant et al review remains in the top 10 most read out of 23 million tracked scientific papers.

    Three references are to fact-checking sites: AAP FactCheck (Australia), AFP Fact Check (France), and Health Feedback (USA), which employ teams of people to prevent the dissemination of information that is not in line with the menticidal narratives of the Great Reset Establishment.

    Four of the nine sources come from two Vice magazine journalists, Anna Merlan and Tim Hume. Their articles are replete with worn-out terms such as right-wing, conspiracy theorist, Covid-denier, anti-vaxxer, and mis-/disinformation-peddler. They also predictably take issue with ivermectin, common law, and even the notion of sovereign citizens! The tone of the articles ranges from wryly dismissive to scathingly scornful, with words such as discredited, nonsense, completely false, misleading, and fringe peppering the text. They also delight in reporting cases of doctors and scientists who have been barred from their professions for refusing to deny their professional oaths and personal principles. Underlying the supercilious slurs, however, runs a definite current of concern that these ‘discredited conspiracy theorists’ who are promoting health, freedom, and human rights may actually be gaining traction.

    Larry Sanger reflects on how far Wikipedia has departed from its original commitment to neutrality by pointing out the features of biased reporting, all of which apply to the Wikipedia article on WCH:

    negative information is so predominant that readers can infer that the authors harbor great hatred, resentment, or strong disapproval of the subject (especially when the target has a popular following among many ordinary people);

    dismissive epithets and judgments are used in Wikipedia’s own voice; or

    what a person is legitimately famous for is omitted, dismissed, or misrepresented

    While WCH might wish to create a more accurate Wikipedia entry, this is not possible. According to the view source button, only registered users are allowed to edit this article. In other words, WCH has no right of reply.


    Wikipedia, like a child having a tantrum, refuses point-blank to engage with those people and ideas it just WILL NOT acknowledge.
    Is there a future for Wikipedia?

    Why anyone would bother to search Wikipedia for information about WCH, which has a perfectly informative website and Substack, is anyone’s guess. But the more Wikipedia produces atrocious articles like the one on WCH, the faster they will lose credibility among those who simply want information and do not have an ideological axe to grind.

    In fact, it is worth subjecting this article to a well-known credibility test developed by California State University, and appropriately named the CRAAP test!

    Its five components (plus comments on the WCH article) include:

    Currency: Is the source up-to-date? – No, for one thing, it does not mention WCH’s second conference in 2023. Although editing of the Wikipedia article continues, no up-to-date information has been added.

    Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research? – Not if one wants to know anything about WCH. But it has been very relevant to an investigation into the decline and fall of Wikipedia.

    Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field? – Absolutely not. Wikipedia’s policy on Reliable Sources specifically discounts independent experts in favour of large news corporations, which are committed to promoting Establishment narratives.

    Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly? – Not at all. Please visit the WCH website to confirm this.

    Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source? – The only purpose appears to be to discredit WCH.

    At least in the case of the WCH article, Wikipedia’s credibility is clearly questionable. More broadly, Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, believes that the platform can no longer be trusted. Observing that it has become a useful propaganda mouthpiece for the Establishment, he mused: “If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power.”

    Indeed, in recent years, Google has invested substantially in the Wikipedia Foundation, paying them to provide the “most accurate and up-to-date information” for its search engine. Google is now elevating Wikipedia articles in Internet searches, using their content to populate their ‘knowledge panels’, and inserting their articles under videos on YouTube (its subsidiary) in an effort “to fight misinformation and conspiracy theories.” In this way, the actual spreaders of misinformation flood the Internet with their post-truth propaganda, causing those who value Truth, Beauty, and Goodness to look elsewhere for information.

    What is particularly interesting, though, is that the Wikipedia edifice may be crumbling from within. Thanks to the transparency of the Wikimedia system, one is able to peer behind the curtain into the online discussions of the various editors working on a particular article. And here we discover dissention in the ranks. Recent discussions between Wikipedia editors working on the WCH article reveal anything but agreement regarding this flimsy hit-piece. For example, one editor asks why the article on WCH focuses on Dr Lawrie. The person then asks why Dr Lawrie’s qualifications, directorship, publication record, and over 4,000 citations are not mentioned (actually Dr Lawrie has over 5,000 citations and is ranked among the top 5% of Researchgate scientists), but only her prior role as an obstetrician. It is encouraging to read the following comment:

    Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's [sic.] make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher. Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method.

    Later, and for good reason, concerns are expressed about the use of Vice magazine as a ‘reliable source’ (RS).


    Anna Merlan, author of three of the Vice articles.
    Conclusion

    WCH’s Wikipedia experience is the tip of a very large iceberg of censorship and suppression (Shi-Raz et al. 2023) that, especially over the past four years, has been threatening to sink those opposing Establishment narratives. Media and tech companies, including Wikipedia, Google, and the fact-checkers mentioned in this article, have played a central role in stifling debate and attempting to constrain narratives and minds. But, as Larry Sanger puts it, “people have natural BS detectors” and are not satisfied with condescending journalists or one flavour of opinion.

    Instead, as described by Shi-Raz et al., many people who are concerned about public health and committed to freedom of speech have not been deterred by the efforts of the Establishment. Instead, they have been motivated to create a world in parallel to the mainstream, using alternative channels of communication, establishing multi-disciplinary support networks, and developing alternative medical and health information systems such as, of course, the World Council for Health.

    And, recognising the decline of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger is in the process of creating what he calls the ‘Encyclosphere’, a massive network of online encyclopaedias covering a plethora of specialist and generalist areas of knowledge, that is set to literally put Wikipedia in its place as an equal among many others.

    So, while Wikipedia spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money on a business that not only lacks substance but is also mean-spirited and divisive, initiatives like WCH and the Encyclosphere shine like candles in the dark, illuminating a better way.

    Share


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wikipedia-smear-piece-wch?utm_medium=ios
    Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment. World Council for Health Written by World Council for Health Correspondent Alice Ashwell, PhD. They say that you pick up the most flack when you’re right over the target. Since the Covid phenomenon began, the degree of flack has become a navigational aid in the pursuit of Truth. Wikipedia’s hit piece on the World Council for Health (WCH) is evidence that their message of health sovereignty has become a threat to the establishment. Brainwashing goes global Ever more brazenly over the past four years, members of the ‘Great Reset Establishment’ have been involved in a process of what Psychoanalyst Dr Bruce Scott calls ‘menticide’, or brainwashing on a global scale. Through the unethical use of applied psychology, governments, corporations, and organisations around the world have been manipulating the masses into compliance with their globalist agenda. Whether the issue has been Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, economic meltdown, or climate hysteria, the outcome has been an environment of heightened fear and uncertainty. People seeking direction have been subjected to unprecedented levels of propaganda and censorship, which have added to the confusion by creating a ‘through-the-looking-glass’ world in which it feels like truths have become lies, and vice versa. If this content is important to you, please share it with your network. Share Wikipedia - no longer reliable One of the ‘trusted’ sources we have become accustomed to turning to when seeking information on a host of topics is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This online encyclopedia was established in 2001 with the aim of being a free, open, and neutral source of information that anyone could access and edit. The idea was that all sides of controversial issues would be welcomed and readers would be left to make up their own minds. But, as Wikipedia co-founder-turned-critic Larry Sanger complained in an interview with Glenn Greenwald in July 2023, “It didn’t work out that way.” Over time, the platform has moved away from its non-negotiable editorial policy that content should strive to reflect a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV). As Kristin Heflin described in her PhD thesis in 2010, this means that: … all Wikipedia content must represent―fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By insisting articles represent [―] all significant views without bias, the policy of striving for NPOV shares similarities with objectivity … (p. 89) In 2015, Heather Ford observed in her D. Phil. Thesis that Wikipedia was by that time offering “a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others” (p. 3). She continued: Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented. This means that Wikipedia is able to decide which facts are stabilised or destabilised on its platform, according to the ideological positions of its editors. While Wikipedia originally provided the opportunity for people to publish without the need for gatekeepers or mediators, this is no longer the case. Especially since the Covid-19 event boosted the fortunes of the Censorship Industrial Complex, Wikipedians have become foot soldiers in the battle to scrub from the Internet information they consider to be mis-, dis-, or mal-information. Larry Sanger, in the interview mentioned above, described how he has watched Wikipedia’s neutrality evaporate over the years, shifting around 2005 to establishment views on topics like global warming and certain drugs, and starting to show bias against holistic medicine in the early 2010s. Its reliable sources of information are now left-of-centre media corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, while in their policies 80% of news sources on the right are deemed unreliable. Independent news outlets and self-published subject experts are also not able to edit a Wikipedia page. Before it is deemed acceptable, information needs to be filtered through a mainstream news source, which in turn is constrained by fact-checking services. Misrepresenting Covid dissidents The World Council for Health (WCH) is one of many organisations and individuals who have been defamed by Wikipedia since the advent of Covid-19. As discussed at the WCH’s 83rd General Assembly meeting in April 2023, this has been part of a much broader strategy to silence dissent with regard to the so-called pandemic and its protocols. WCH was established to challenge the official Covid response and its Wikipedia article was created in September 2022. The current Wikipedia entry is fairly close to the original version, although it has been edited a number of times. However, a number of Wikipedia pages created prior to Covid-19 have been completely amended since 2020, resulting in a ‘hero-to-zero’ fall from grace for people such as the author Dr Vernon Coleman (compare his October 2019 entry with the current article), and the early developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert Malone, whose role in this invention has been deleted from the page on mRNA vaccines. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/fact-checkers-independent-media/ Who’s fact-checking the fact-checkers? A trio of independent media creators—Derrick Broze, Jason Bassler & Joe Martino—reveal their eye-opening shared experience in dealing with fact-checkers and censorship dating back years before Covid-19 emerged. Scarcely worth commenting on … but we shall! Let’s take a look at the WCH Wikipedia article (accessed 18 December 2023) to see just how deeply flawed and factually incorrect it is. Firstly, the content – comprising just eight paragraphs – is entirely inadequate. Other than stating that the organisation “appears to have been formed in September 2021” [emphasis mine], and that it was “founded by Jennifer A. Hibberd and Tess Lawrie”, nothing substantive is mentioned about what WCH is or what it does, despite its goals, values, and initiatives being clearly represented on its website and social media channels. Secondly, most of the article attempts to smear WCH by association. The bulk of the content refers to people or organisations who are part of the broader health freedom network but neither WCH staff nor council members, including Robert F Kennedy Jr of Children’s Health Defense and esteemed cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra. Wikipedia maligns these experts for their efforts to cancel the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 gene therapies which, contrary to the protestations of the fact-checkers, have caused millions of deaths worldwide. Ironically, Wikipedia accuses Dr Malhotra of “cherry-picking” sources to substantiate his concerns about the jab, yet they themselves cherry-pick tangential content and questionable opinions from, with only two exceptions, rather dubious sources. So, thirdly, let’s have a look at the references Wikipedia uses to back up its potentially libelous statements. The reference to Kerr et. al (March 2022) is simply a brief Erratum, noting that some of the authors of the paper quoted were using ivermectin to treat patients, which one would expect as they were reporting on its efficacy. The flawed Cochrane Review by Popp et. al (2022) that criticised a systematic review by Bryant et. al (2021) on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19 was thoroughly debunked in a letter sent to them by Fordham and colleagues in September 2021, but this has not been acknowledged on Wikipedia. The Bryant et al review remains in the top 10 most read out of 23 million tracked scientific papers. Three references are to fact-checking sites: AAP FactCheck (Australia), AFP Fact Check (France), and Health Feedback (USA), which employ teams of people to prevent the dissemination of information that is not in line with the menticidal narratives of the Great Reset Establishment. Four of the nine sources come from two Vice magazine journalists, Anna Merlan and Tim Hume. Their articles are replete with worn-out terms such as right-wing, conspiracy theorist, Covid-denier, anti-vaxxer, and mis-/disinformation-peddler. They also predictably take issue with ivermectin, common law, and even the notion of sovereign citizens! The tone of the articles ranges from wryly dismissive to scathingly scornful, with words such as discredited, nonsense, completely false, misleading, and fringe peppering the text. They also delight in reporting cases of doctors and scientists who have been barred from their professions for refusing to deny their professional oaths and personal principles. Underlying the supercilious slurs, however, runs a definite current of concern that these ‘discredited conspiracy theorists’ who are promoting health, freedom, and human rights may actually be gaining traction. Larry Sanger reflects on how far Wikipedia has departed from its original commitment to neutrality by pointing out the features of biased reporting, all of which apply to the Wikipedia article on WCH: negative information is so predominant that readers can infer that the authors harbor great hatred, resentment, or strong disapproval of the subject (especially when the target has a popular following among many ordinary people); dismissive epithets and judgments are used in Wikipedia’s own voice; or what a person is legitimately famous for is omitted, dismissed, or misrepresented While WCH might wish to create a more accurate Wikipedia entry, this is not possible. According to the view source button, only registered users are allowed to edit this article. In other words, WCH has no right of reply. Wikipedia, like a child having a tantrum, refuses point-blank to engage with those people and ideas it just WILL NOT acknowledge. Is there a future for Wikipedia? Why anyone would bother to search Wikipedia for information about WCH, which has a perfectly informative website and Substack, is anyone’s guess. But the more Wikipedia produces atrocious articles like the one on WCH, the faster they will lose credibility among those who simply want information and do not have an ideological axe to grind. In fact, it is worth subjecting this article to a well-known credibility test developed by California State University, and appropriately named the CRAAP test! Its five components (plus comments on the WCH article) include: Currency: Is the source up-to-date? – No, for one thing, it does not mention WCH’s second conference in 2023. Although editing of the Wikipedia article continues, no up-to-date information has been added. Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research? – Not if one wants to know anything about WCH. But it has been very relevant to an investigation into the decline and fall of Wikipedia. Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field? – Absolutely not. Wikipedia’s policy on Reliable Sources specifically discounts independent experts in favour of large news corporations, which are committed to promoting Establishment narratives. Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly? – Not at all. Please visit the WCH website to confirm this. Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source? – The only purpose appears to be to discredit WCH. At least in the case of the WCH article, Wikipedia’s credibility is clearly questionable. More broadly, Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, believes that the platform can no longer be trusted. Observing that it has become a useful propaganda mouthpiece for the Establishment, he mused: “If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power.” Indeed, in recent years, Google has invested substantially in the Wikipedia Foundation, paying them to provide the “most accurate and up-to-date information” for its search engine. Google is now elevating Wikipedia articles in Internet searches, using their content to populate their ‘knowledge panels’, and inserting their articles under videos on YouTube (its subsidiary) in an effort “to fight misinformation and conspiracy theories.” In this way, the actual spreaders of misinformation flood the Internet with their post-truth propaganda, causing those who value Truth, Beauty, and Goodness to look elsewhere for information. What is particularly interesting, though, is that the Wikipedia edifice may be crumbling from within. Thanks to the transparency of the Wikimedia system, one is able to peer behind the curtain into the online discussions of the various editors working on a particular article. And here we discover dissention in the ranks. Recent discussions between Wikipedia editors working on the WCH article reveal anything but agreement regarding this flimsy hit-piece. For example, one editor asks why the article on WCH focuses on Dr Lawrie. The person then asks why Dr Lawrie’s qualifications, directorship, publication record, and over 4,000 citations are not mentioned (actually Dr Lawrie has over 5,000 citations and is ranked among the top 5% of Researchgate scientists), but only her prior role as an obstetrician. It is encouraging to read the following comment: Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's [sic.] make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher. Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method. Later, and for good reason, concerns are expressed about the use of Vice magazine as a ‘reliable source’ (RS). Anna Merlan, author of three of the Vice articles. Conclusion WCH’s Wikipedia experience is the tip of a very large iceberg of censorship and suppression (Shi-Raz et al. 2023) that, especially over the past four years, has been threatening to sink those opposing Establishment narratives. Media and tech companies, including Wikipedia, Google, and the fact-checkers mentioned in this article, have played a central role in stifling debate and attempting to constrain narratives and minds. But, as Larry Sanger puts it, “people have natural BS detectors” and are not satisfied with condescending journalists or one flavour of opinion. Instead, as described by Shi-Raz et al., many people who are concerned about public health and committed to freedom of speech have not been deterred by the efforts of the Establishment. Instead, they have been motivated to create a world in parallel to the mainstream, using alternative channels of communication, establishing multi-disciplinary support networks, and developing alternative medical and health information systems such as, of course, the World Council for Health. And, recognising the decline of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger is in the process of creating what he calls the ‘Encyclosphere’, a massive network of online encyclopaedias covering a plethora of specialist and generalist areas of knowledge, that is set to literally put Wikipedia in its place as an equal among many others. So, while Wikipedia spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money on a business that not only lacks substance but is also mean-spirited and divisive, initiatives like WCH and the Encyclosphere shine like candles in the dark, illuminating a better way. Share If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wikipedia-smear-piece-wch?utm_medium=ios
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour
    The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment.
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 14559 Views
  • Certainly! If you're interested in creating an assistant program, there are several ways to approach it depending on your goals and the context in which you want to deploy the assistant. Here are some general steps and considerations:
    Define the Purpose:

    Identify the purpose: Clearly define what tasks or functions you want your assistant to perform. It could be anything from answering questions, providing information, automating tasks, or even engaging in conversation.

    Choose a Platform:

    Select a platform: Decide where your assistant will be deployed. It could be a web application, a mobile app, a chatbot on messaging platforms, or even a standalone desktop application.

    Technologies and Tools:

    Choose the technology stack: Based on your platform choice, select the appropriate technologies and tools. For example, if you're creating a chatbot, you might use frameworks like Rasa, Dialogflow, or Microsoft Bot Framework.

    Natural Language Processing (NLP):

    Implement NLP: If your assistant involves understanding and generating natural language, integrate a Natural Language Processing (NLP) component. This is crucial for tasks like language understanding, sentiment analysis, and text generation.

    Data:

    Collect and preprocess data: Depending on your assistant's functions, you might need a dataset for training machine learning models or for improving language understanding.

    Machine Learning (Optional):

    Implement machine learning (if needed): If your assistant requires learning from user interactions, implement machine learning algorithms. This is common in chatbots that get better at understanding user queries over time.

    User Interface (UI):

    Design the user interface: Create an intuitive and user-friendly interface. This is crucial for user engagement. If it's a chatbot, design conversation flows and responses.

    Integration:

    Integrate external services: If your assistant needs to interact with external services or APIs, integrate them seamlessly into your application.

    Testing:

    Testing: Rigorously test your assistant to ensure it performs as expected. Test different scenarios, handle edge cases, and refine your assistant based on user feedback.

    Deployment:

    Deployment: Once satisfied with testing, deploy your assistant to the chosen platform.

    Maintenance and Updates:

    Maintenance and updates: Regularly update your assistant to improve performance, fix bugs, and add new features. Pay attention to user feedback for continuous improvement.

    Privacy and Security:

    Privacy and security: If your assistant deals with sensitive information, prioritize privacy and security. Implement encryption, secure connections, and follow best practices for data protection.

    User Feedback:

    Collect user feedback: Encourage users to provide feedback, and use it to make improvements. Continuous feedback helps in refining and enhancing the assistant's capabilities.

    Remember that the specific steps and technologies may vary depending on the complexity and scope of your assistant. This is a general guideline to get you started.
    Certainly! If you're interested in creating an assistant program, there are several ways to approach it depending on your goals and the context in which you want to deploy the assistant. Here are some general steps and considerations: Define the Purpose: Identify the purpose: Clearly define what tasks or functions you want your assistant to perform. It could be anything from answering questions, providing information, automating tasks, or even engaging in conversation. Choose a Platform: Select a platform: Decide where your assistant will be deployed. It could be a web application, a mobile app, a chatbot on messaging platforms, or even a standalone desktop application. Technologies and Tools: Choose the technology stack: Based on your platform choice, select the appropriate technologies and tools. For example, if you're creating a chatbot, you might use frameworks like Rasa, Dialogflow, or Microsoft Bot Framework. Natural Language Processing (NLP): Implement NLP: If your assistant involves understanding and generating natural language, integrate a Natural Language Processing (NLP) component. This is crucial for tasks like language understanding, sentiment analysis, and text generation. Data: Collect and preprocess data: Depending on your assistant's functions, you might need a dataset for training machine learning models or for improving language understanding. Machine Learning (Optional): Implement machine learning (if needed): If your assistant requires learning from user interactions, implement machine learning algorithms. This is common in chatbots that get better at understanding user queries over time. User Interface (UI): Design the user interface: Create an intuitive and user-friendly interface. This is crucial for user engagement. If it's a chatbot, design conversation flows and responses. Integration: Integrate external services: If your assistant needs to interact with external services or APIs, integrate them seamlessly into your application. Testing: Testing: Rigorously test your assistant to ensure it performs as expected. Test different scenarios, handle edge cases, and refine your assistant based on user feedback. Deployment: Deployment: Once satisfied with testing, deploy your assistant to the chosen platform. Maintenance and Updates: Maintenance and updates: Regularly update your assistant to improve performance, fix bugs, and add new features. Pay attention to user feedback for continuous improvement. Privacy and Security: Privacy and security: If your assistant deals with sensitive information, prioritize privacy and security. Implement encryption, secure connections, and follow best practices for data protection. User Feedback: Collect user feedback: Encourage users to provide feedback, and use it to make improvements. Continuous feedback helps in refining and enhancing the assistant's capabilities. Remember that the specific steps and technologies may vary depending on the complexity and scope of your assistant. This is a general guideline to get you started.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6268 Views
  • Building a Website in Python: A Step-by-Step Guide
    *********************

    In the ever-evolving world of web development, Python has emerged as a powerful and versatile programming language. Its simplicity, readability, and extensive libraries make it an excellent choice for building websites. Whether you are a beginner or an experienced developer, this step-by-step guide will help you embark on the journey of creating a website using Python.
    Step 1: Set Up Your Development Environment

    Before diving into web development, ensure that you have Python installed on your machine. You can download the latest version of Python from the official website (https://www.python.org/). Additionally, consider using a virtual environment to isolate your project dependencies.

    bash

    # Create a virtual environment
    python -m venv myenv

    # Activate the virtual environment
    source myenv/bin/activate # On Windows, use `myenv\Scripts\activate`

    Step 2: Choose a Web Framework

    Python offers several web frameworks, each with its strengths and use cases. Two popular choices are Flask and Django. Flask is lightweight and provides flexibility, making it great for small to medium-sized projects. On the other hand, Django is a full-featured framework that follows the "batteries-included" philosophy, making it suitable for larger applications.

    For this guide, we'll use Flask due to its simplicity and ease of getting started.

    bash

    # Install Flask
    pip install Flask

    Step 3: Create a Simple Flask App

    Now, let's create a basic Flask application. Open your favorite text editor and create a file named app.py. Add the following code:

    python

    from flask import Flask

    app = Flask(__name__)

    @app.route('/')
    def home():
    return 'Hello, World!'

    if __name__ == '__main__':
    app.run(debug=True)

    This simple app defines a route for the homepage ("/") and displays "Hello, World!" when accessed.
    Step 4: Run Your Flask App

    Save the app.py file and run your Flask application:

    bash

    python app.py

    Visit http://localhost:5000 in your web browser, and you should see the "Hello, World!" message.
    Step 5: Expand Your App

    Now that you have a basic structure, start expanding your app. Here are some ideas:

    Templates: Use Flask's template engine to separate HTML from your Python code.
    Static Files: Add CSS, JavaScript, and other static files to enhance your website's appearance and functionality.
    Database Integration: Incorporate a database using Flask-SQLAlchemy or another database library.
    Forms: Implement user input forms using Flask-WTF or WTForms.
    User Authentication: Secure your website with user authentication using Flask-Login or Flask-Security.

    Step 6: Deploy Your Website

    Once you're satisfied with your website, it's time to share it with the world. Popular platforms for deploying Flask applications include Heroku, AWS, and DigitalOcean. Each platform has its deployment instructions, so choose one that suits your needs.

    Remember to keep security in mind, especially when deploying a production-ready website. Configure your web server, set up secure connections (HTTPS), and follow best practices to protect your users and data.

    Congratulations! You've successfully built a website using Python and Flask. This is just the beginning—continue exploring and expanding your skills in web development. Happy coding!

    Building a Website in Python: A Step-by-Step Guide ********************* In the ever-evolving world of web development, Python has emerged as a powerful and versatile programming language. Its simplicity, readability, and extensive libraries make it an excellent choice for building websites. Whether you are a beginner or an experienced developer, this step-by-step guide will help you embark on the journey of creating a website using Python. Step 1: Set Up Your Development Environment Before diving into web development, ensure that you have Python installed on your machine. You can download the latest version of Python from the official website (https://www.python.org/). Additionally, consider using a virtual environment to isolate your project dependencies. bash # Create a virtual environment python -m venv myenv # Activate the virtual environment source myenv/bin/activate # On Windows, use `myenv\Scripts\activate` Step 2: Choose a Web Framework Python offers several web frameworks, each with its strengths and use cases. Two popular choices are Flask and Django. Flask is lightweight and provides flexibility, making it great for small to medium-sized projects. On the other hand, Django is a full-featured framework that follows the "batteries-included" philosophy, making it suitable for larger applications. For this guide, we'll use Flask due to its simplicity and ease of getting started. bash # Install Flask pip install Flask Step 3: Create a Simple Flask App Now, let's create a basic Flask application. Open your favorite text editor and create a file named app.py. Add the following code: python from flask import Flask app = Flask(__name__) @app.route('/') def home(): return 'Hello, World!' if __name__ == '__main__': app.run(debug=True) This simple app defines a route for the homepage ("/") and displays "Hello, World!" when accessed. Step 4: Run Your Flask App Save the app.py file and run your Flask application: bash python app.py Visit http://localhost:5000 in your web browser, and you should see the "Hello, World!" message. Step 5: Expand Your App Now that you have a basic structure, start expanding your app. Here are some ideas: Templates: Use Flask's template engine to separate HTML from your Python code. Static Files: Add CSS, JavaScript, and other static files to enhance your website's appearance and functionality. Database Integration: Incorporate a database using Flask-SQLAlchemy or another database library. Forms: Implement user input forms using Flask-WTF or WTForms. User Authentication: Secure your website with user authentication using Flask-Login or Flask-Security. Step 6: Deploy Your Website Once you're satisfied with your website, it's time to share it with the world. Popular platforms for deploying Flask applications include Heroku, AWS, and DigitalOcean. Each platform has its deployment instructions, so choose one that suits your needs. Remember to keep security in mind, especially when deploying a production-ready website. Configure your web server, set up secure connections (HTTPS), and follow best practices to protect your users and data. Congratulations! You've successfully built a website using Python and Flask. This is just the beginning—continue exploring and expanding your skills in web development. Happy coding!
    WWW.PYTHON.ORG
    Welcome to Python.org
    The official home of the Python Programming Language
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6141 Views
  • Promolink7 Effective Strategies to Lose Weight Quickly and Safely


    Losing weight is a common goal for many people, but it can feel overwhelming when there are so many different strategies and methods out there. It's important to approach weight loss with a mindset of both effectiveness and safety, ensuring that you not only shed pounds but also maintain good health throughout the process. In this blog post, we will share with you seven effective strategies to help you lose weight quickly and safely. From adopting a balanced and nutritious diet to incorporating regular physical activity and implementing mindful eating habits, these strategies are backed by research and are designed to help you achieve your weight loss goals in a sustainable and healthy way. So, if you're ready to embark on your weight loss journey, keep reading to discover the tools and techniques that will help you succeed.


    1. Set realistic goals and create a plan

    Setting realistic weight loss goals and creating a well-thought-out plan are crucial steps when it comes to losing weight quickly and safely. It's important to remember that healthy weight loss is a gradual process and requires time and dedication. First, assess your current weight and determine a realistic and achievable goal that aligns with your overall health and well-being. It's recommended to aim for a weight loss of 1-2 pounds per week, as this is considered a healthy and sustainable rate. Once you've established your goal, it's time to create a plan of action. Start by evaluating your current eating habits and identifying areas where you can make healthier choices. Incorporate a well-balanced diet that includes plenty of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and whole grains. Consider portion control to manage your calorie intake effectively. It's also essential to stay hydrated and limit sugary beverages. In addition to a healthy diet, regular physical activity is key to losing weight. Choose activities that you enjoy and that fit your lifestyle, whether it's jogging, swimming, cycling, or joining a fitness class. Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity per week, along with strength training exercises at least twice a week. Another crucial aspect is keeping track of your progress. Consider keeping a food diary or using a mobile app to monitor your calorie intake and exercise. This will help you stay accountable and make necessary adjustments along the way. It's also important to celebrate small victories and acknowledge the positive changes you're making. Lastly, surround yourself with a support system. Inform your family and friends about your weight loss journey and ask for their encouragement and understanding. Consider joining a weight loss support group or seeking the guidance of a registered dietitian or personal trainer for professional advice and motivation. By setting realistic goals and creating a well-structured plan, you'll be able to embark on your weight loss journey with confidence and increase your chances of achieving long-term success in a safe and healthy manner.

    Promolink

    2. Adopt a balanced and nutritious diet

    When it comes to losing weight quickly and safely, adopting a balanced and nutritious diet is crucial. While it may be tempting to resort to crash diets or extreme calorie restriction, these methods are not sustainable and can be harmful to your health. Instead, focus on nourishing your body with the right types and amounts of food. Start by incorporating plenty of fruits and vegetables into your daily meals. These nutrient-dense foods not only provide essential vitamins and minerals but also help to keep you feeling full and satisfied. Aim to fill half of your plate with colorful produce to ensure you're getting a variety of nutrients. In addition to fruits and vegetables, include lean proteins such as chicken, fish, tofu, or beans in your diet. Protein is essential for repairing and building muscle, which can help boost your metabolism and support weight loss efforts. Incorporate sources of healthy fats, such as avocado, nuts, and olive oil, as they provide important nutrients and help keep you satiated. It's also important to be mindful of your carbohydrate intake. Opt for complex carbohydrates like whole grains, quinoa, and brown rice, which provide more fiber and nutrients compared to refined carbohydrates. These complex carbs can help regulate blood sugar levels, keep you feeling full, and support steady energy throughout the day. Ensure you're drinking enough water to stay hydrated and promote healthy digestion. Water can also help curb cravings and prevent overeating. Limit sugary beverages like soda and fruit juices, as they are often high in calories and offer little nutritional value. Finally, be mindful of portion sizes and practice mindful eating. Slow down and savor each bite, allowing yourself to fully appreciate the flavors and textures of your food. Pay attention to your body's hunger and fullness cues, stopping when you feel comfortably satisfied. Adopting a balanced and nutritious diet is a key strategy for losing weight quickly and safely. By nourishing your body with wholesome foods and being mindful of portion sizes, you can support your weight loss goals while ensuring you're meeting your nutritional needs.


    3. Incorporate regular physical activity

    Incorporating regular physical activity is a crucial strategy when it comes to losing weight quickly and safely. Exercise not only helps to burn calories, but it also boosts metabolism, builds lean muscle mass, and improves overall health and well-being. To get started, choose activities that you enjoy and that suit your fitness level. This could include brisk walking, jogging, swimming, cycling, or even dancing. Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity exercise each week. Additionally, incorporating strength training exercises into your routine can help to increase muscle mass, which in turn can boost your metabolism and help you burn more calories throughout the day. Remember to start slowly and gradually increase the intensity and duration of your workouts to avoid injury. Finding a workout buddy or joining a fitness class can also provide motivation and accountability. Lastly, don't forget to listen to your body and give yourself rest days to allow for recovery. By incorporating regular physical activity into your weight loss journey, you can not only shed pounds but also improve your overall health and well-being.


    4. Implement mindful eating habits

    Implementing mindful eating habits is a crucial strategy when it comes to losing weight quickly and safely. Mindful eating is all about being present and fully aware of the food you consume. By practicing mindful eating, you can develop a healthier relationship with food and make conscious choices that support your weight loss goals. One of the first steps in mindful eating is to listen to your body's hunger and fullness signals. Pay attention to your body's cues and eat when you're truly hungry, stopping when you're comfortably satisfied. This helps avoid overeating and promotes a balanced approach to food. Another aspect of mindful eating is slowing down and savoring each bite. Take the time to chew your food thoroughly and really taste it. This not only enhances the enjoyment of your meal but also allows your body to register feelings of fullness more accurately. Eliminating distractions while eating is also important. Put away your phone, turn off the TV, and focus solely on the act of eating. This allows you to tune into your body's signals and prevents mindless eating, which can lead to consuming more calories than necessary. Planning and preparing your meals in advance can also support mindful eating. By having healthy, portion-controlled meals readily available, you're less likely to resort to unhealthy food choices or overeating due to convenience. Being mindful of portion sizes is another essential aspect. Use smaller plates and bowls to control portion sizes visually. Pay attention to serving sizes and try to avoid going back for seconds unless you're truly hungry. It's also crucial to be aware of emotional eating triggers. Many people turn to food for comfort, stress relief, or boredom. Finding alternative coping mechanisms, such as engaging in physical activity, practicing relaxation techniques, or seeking support from loved ones, can help break the cycle of emotional eating. Lastly, practicing self-compassion and forgiveness is key. Remember that nobody is perfect, and occasional indulgences are part of a balanced lifestyle. Instead of beating yourself up over a slip-up, acknowledge it, learn from it, and move forward with your healthy eating habits. By implementing mindful eating habits, you can develop a healthier relationship with food, gain better control over your eating habits, and ultimately achieve your weight loss goals in a sustainable and enjoyable way.
    Promolink

    Promolink
    ------------------------------
    Promolink7 Effective Strategies to Lose Weight Quickly and Safely Losing weight is a common goal for many people, but it can feel overwhelming when there are so many different strategies and methods out there. It's important to approach weight loss with a mindset of both effectiveness and safety, ensuring that you not only shed pounds but also maintain good health throughout the process. In this blog post, we will share with you seven effective strategies to help you lose weight quickly and safely. From adopting a balanced and nutritious diet to incorporating regular physical activity and implementing mindful eating habits, these strategies are backed by research and are designed to help you achieve your weight loss goals in a sustainable and healthy way. So, if you're ready to embark on your weight loss journey, keep reading to discover the tools and techniques that will help you succeed. 1. Set realistic goals and create a plan Setting realistic weight loss goals and creating a well-thought-out plan are crucial steps when it comes to losing weight quickly and safely. It's important to remember that healthy weight loss is a gradual process and requires time and dedication. First, assess your current weight and determine a realistic and achievable goal that aligns with your overall health and well-being. It's recommended to aim for a weight loss of 1-2 pounds per week, as this is considered a healthy and sustainable rate. Once you've established your goal, it's time to create a plan of action. Start by evaluating your current eating habits and identifying areas where you can make healthier choices. Incorporate a well-balanced diet that includes plenty of fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and whole grains. Consider portion control to manage your calorie intake effectively. It's also essential to stay hydrated and limit sugary beverages. In addition to a healthy diet, regular physical activity is key to losing weight. Choose activities that you enjoy and that fit your lifestyle, whether it's jogging, swimming, cycling, or joining a fitness class. Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity per week, along with strength training exercises at least twice a week. Another crucial aspect is keeping track of your progress. Consider keeping a food diary or using a mobile app to monitor your calorie intake and exercise. This will help you stay accountable and make necessary adjustments along the way. It's also important to celebrate small victories and acknowledge the positive changes you're making. Lastly, surround yourself with a support system. Inform your family and friends about your weight loss journey and ask for their encouragement and understanding. Consider joining a weight loss support group or seeking the guidance of a registered dietitian or personal trainer for professional advice and motivation. By setting realistic goals and creating a well-structured plan, you'll be able to embark on your weight loss journey with confidence and increase your chances of achieving long-term success in a safe and healthy manner. Promolink 2. Adopt a balanced and nutritious diet When it comes to losing weight quickly and safely, adopting a balanced and nutritious diet is crucial. While it may be tempting to resort to crash diets or extreme calorie restriction, these methods are not sustainable and can be harmful to your health. Instead, focus on nourishing your body with the right types and amounts of food. Start by incorporating plenty of fruits and vegetables into your daily meals. These nutrient-dense foods not only provide essential vitamins and minerals but also help to keep you feeling full and satisfied. Aim to fill half of your plate with colorful produce to ensure you're getting a variety of nutrients. In addition to fruits and vegetables, include lean proteins such as chicken, fish, tofu, or beans in your diet. Protein is essential for repairing and building muscle, which can help boost your metabolism and support weight loss efforts. Incorporate sources of healthy fats, such as avocado, nuts, and olive oil, as they provide important nutrients and help keep you satiated. It's also important to be mindful of your carbohydrate intake. Opt for complex carbohydrates like whole grains, quinoa, and brown rice, which provide more fiber and nutrients compared to refined carbohydrates. These complex carbs can help regulate blood sugar levels, keep you feeling full, and support steady energy throughout the day. Ensure you're drinking enough water to stay hydrated and promote healthy digestion. Water can also help curb cravings and prevent overeating. Limit sugary beverages like soda and fruit juices, as they are often high in calories and offer little nutritional value. Finally, be mindful of portion sizes and practice mindful eating. Slow down and savor each bite, allowing yourself to fully appreciate the flavors and textures of your food. Pay attention to your body's hunger and fullness cues, stopping when you feel comfortably satisfied. Adopting a balanced and nutritious diet is a key strategy for losing weight quickly and safely. By nourishing your body with wholesome foods and being mindful of portion sizes, you can support your weight loss goals while ensuring you're meeting your nutritional needs. 3. Incorporate regular physical activity Incorporating regular physical activity is a crucial strategy when it comes to losing weight quickly and safely. Exercise not only helps to burn calories, but it also boosts metabolism, builds lean muscle mass, and improves overall health and well-being. To get started, choose activities that you enjoy and that suit your fitness level. This could include brisk walking, jogging, swimming, cycling, or even dancing. Aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity exercise each week. Additionally, incorporating strength training exercises into your routine can help to increase muscle mass, which in turn can boost your metabolism and help you burn more calories throughout the day. Remember to start slowly and gradually increase the intensity and duration of your workouts to avoid injury. Finding a workout buddy or joining a fitness class can also provide motivation and accountability. Lastly, don't forget to listen to your body and give yourself rest days to allow for recovery. By incorporating regular physical activity into your weight loss journey, you can not only shed pounds but also improve your overall health and well-being. 4. Implement mindful eating habits Implementing mindful eating habits is a crucial strategy when it comes to losing weight quickly and safely. Mindful eating is all about being present and fully aware of the food you consume. By practicing mindful eating, you can develop a healthier relationship with food and make conscious choices that support your weight loss goals. One of the first steps in mindful eating is to listen to your body's hunger and fullness signals. Pay attention to your body's cues and eat when you're truly hungry, stopping when you're comfortably satisfied. This helps avoid overeating and promotes a balanced approach to food. Another aspect of mindful eating is slowing down and savoring each bite. Take the time to chew your food thoroughly and really taste it. This not only enhances the enjoyment of your meal but also allows your body to register feelings of fullness more accurately. Eliminating distractions while eating is also important. Put away your phone, turn off the TV, and focus solely on the act of eating. This allows you to tune into your body's signals and prevents mindless eating, which can lead to consuming more calories than necessary. Planning and preparing your meals in advance can also support mindful eating. By having healthy, portion-controlled meals readily available, you're less likely to resort to unhealthy food choices or overeating due to convenience. Being mindful of portion sizes is another essential aspect. Use smaller plates and bowls to control portion sizes visually. Pay attention to serving sizes and try to avoid going back for seconds unless you're truly hungry. It's also crucial to be aware of emotional eating triggers. Many people turn to food for comfort, stress relief, or boredom. Finding alternative coping mechanisms, such as engaging in physical activity, practicing relaxation techniques, or seeking support from loved ones, can help break the cycle of emotional eating. Lastly, practicing self-compassion and forgiveness is key. Remember that nobody is perfect, and occasional indulgences are part of a balanced lifestyle. Instead of beating yourself up over a slip-up, acknowledge it, learn from it, and move forward with your healthy eating habits. By implementing mindful eating habits, you can develop a healthier relationship with food, gain better control over your eating habits, and ultimately achieve your weight loss goals in a sustainable and enjoyable way. Promolink Promolink ------------------------------
    0 Comments 0 Shares 19994 Views
  • The Lanta Flat Belly Shake…

    The potent blend of rare fruit and plant extracts that allows you to burn off stubborn fat without any extra effort… Allowing you to have the sexy, toned and tight body you crave.

    Simply mix one scoop of powder into a glass of water or your favorite beverage each morning.

    The delicious shake will infuse your body with an ancient, youth-enhancing blend of rare nutrients.

    The natural surge of energy accelerates your metabolism and you feel on top of the world…ready to take on anything.

    You feel youthful, confident and light.
    Your cravings fade away…
    Your digestion becomes smoother and easier….
    As you melt fat from your belly, back, thighs, arms and face.
    The unique combination of ingredients inside the Lanta Flat Belly Shake triggers a powerful internal reaction…
    Which melts away excess fat and calories at an astonishing rate…

    Maintains healthy digestion and increases reserves of natural energy…

    All by drinking a single refreshing glass every morning.

    Simply mix the Lanta Flat Belly Shake powder with water or into your favourite beverage each morning.

    And enjoy the delicious fruity taste while your metabolism starts to fire on all cylinders.

    Burn fat and enjoy soaring energy levels just like the healthy, lean remote islanders have done for centuries.

    The Lanta Flat Belly Shake has no known side effects and contains only natural, powerful ingredients.

    It is manufactured right here in the USA in an FDA approved and good manufacturing practices facility…

    Where regular checks and tests are carried out to ensure potency and quality.

    100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
    Click here to get it promolink
    https://rb.gy/faivgv
    100% Satisfaction Guaranteed


    The Lanta Flat Belly Shake is backed by a 100% money back guarantee for 365 days from your original purchase. If you're not totally and completely satisfied with this product, your results or your experience in the first 365 days from your purchase simply let us know contacting us through this website and you will receive a full refund of what you ordered within 48 hours of the product being returned. Simply return the product, even empty bottles, anytime within 365 days of your purchase and you'll receive a full, no questions asked refund (less shipping and handling).
    Click here to get it promolink
    https://rb.gy/faivgv
    The Lanta Flat Belly Shake… The potent blend of rare fruit and plant extracts that allows you to burn off stubborn fat without any extra effort… Allowing you to have the sexy, toned and tight body you crave. Simply mix one scoop of powder into a glass of water or your favorite beverage each morning. The delicious shake will infuse your body with an ancient, youth-enhancing blend of rare nutrients. The natural surge of energy accelerates your metabolism and you feel on top of the world…ready to take on anything. You feel youthful, confident and light. Your cravings fade away… Your digestion becomes smoother and easier…. As you melt fat from your belly, back, thighs, arms and face. The unique combination of ingredients inside the Lanta Flat Belly Shake triggers a powerful internal reaction… Which melts away excess fat and calories at an astonishing rate… Maintains healthy digestion and increases reserves of natural energy… All by drinking a single refreshing glass every morning. Simply mix the Lanta Flat Belly Shake powder with water or into your favourite beverage each morning. And enjoy the delicious fruity taste while your metabolism starts to fire on all cylinders. Burn fat and enjoy soaring energy levels just like the healthy, lean remote islanders have done for centuries. The Lanta Flat Belly Shake has no known side effects and contains only natural, powerful ingredients. It is manufactured right here in the USA in an FDA approved and good manufacturing practices facility… Where regular checks and tests are carried out to ensure potency and quality. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed Click here to get it promolink https://rb.gy/faivgv 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed The Lanta Flat Belly Shake is backed by a 100% money back guarantee for 365 days from your original purchase. If you're not totally and completely satisfied with this product, your results or your experience in the first 365 days from your purchase simply let us know contacting us through this website and you will receive a full refund of what you ordered within 48 hours of the product being returned. Simply return the product, even empty bottles, anytime within 365 days of your purchase and you'll receive a full, no questions asked refund (less shipping and handling). Click here to get it promolink https://rb.gy/faivgv
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6527 Views
  • Do you want to lose weight with a keto diet plan? Promolink here

    In today's world, where obesity and weight-related issues have reached epidemic proportions, a keto diet plan has emerged as an effective solution for those looking to shed those extra pounds
    . The ketogenic diet, or simply keto, is a low-carb, high-fat diet that has gained immense popularity due to its ability to promote weight loss without compromising on taste and satiety.

    But what exactly is a keto diet plan, and how does it work? Let's delve into the science behind this revolutionary way of eating.

    The primary goal of a keto diet plan is to induce a state of ketosis in the body. Ketosis is a metabolic process that occurs when the body doesn't have enough glucose for energy and starts burning stored fats instead. By strictly limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the

    consumption of healthy fats, the body is forced to switch from using glucose as its primary fuel source to using fats. This results in the release of ketones, which are produced in the liver from the breakdown of fats.

    One of the main reasons why a keto diet plan is so effective for weight loss is that it helps to control hunger and cravings. When you consume carbohydrates, they are broken down into glucose, which causes a spike in blood sugar levels. This, in turn, leads to a rapid rise in insulin levels, which can cause cravings and overeating. By significantly reducing carbohydrate intake, the body maintains stable blood sugar and insulin levels, thereby reducing hunger and the desire to snack unnecessarily

    Moreover, the high-fat content of a keto diet plan helps to keep you feeling full and satisfied for longer periods. Fats are known to be more satiating compared to carbohydrates, which means you won't find yourself constantly thinking about your next meal or craving unhealthy snacks throughout the day. This not only aids in weight loss but also promotes a more balanced and sustainable approach to eating.

    Another advantage of a keto diet plan is its ability to boost metabolism and fat burning. When the body enters a state of ketosis, it becomes more efficient at utilizing fats for energy. This leads to an increased rate of fat burning, which can help you achieve your weight loss goals faster. Additionally, the consumption of healthy fats, such as avocados, nuts, and olive oil, provides essential nutrients and promotes overall well-being.

    It's important to note that while a keto diet plan can be highly effective for weight loss, it may not be suitable for everyone. If you have any underlying health conditions or are taking medication, it's crucial to consult with a healthcare professional before starting any new diet. Additionally, it's important to ensure that you're consuming a variety of nutrient-dense foods and meeting your daily nutritional requirements.

    In conclusion, a keto diet plan can be a powerful tool in the battle against excess weight. By limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, you can induce a state of ketosis, which promotes fat burning and helps to control hunger and cravings. However, it's essential to approach any diet plan with caution and consult with a healthcare professional to ensure its suitability for your individual needs. With the right guidance and a commitment to healthy eating, you can achieve your weight loss goals and embark on a journey towards a healthier and happier you.

    Click here to get it keto diet plan weight loss promolink
    https://www.digistore24.com/redir/411008/Abrar769/

    https://tinyurl.com/548hedaf
    Do you want to lose weight with a keto diet plan? Promolink here In today's world, where obesity and weight-related issues have reached epidemic proportions, a keto diet plan has emerged as an effective solution for those looking to shed those extra pounds . The ketogenic diet, or simply keto, is a low-carb, high-fat diet that has gained immense popularity due to its ability to promote weight loss without compromising on taste and satiety. But what exactly is a keto diet plan, and how does it work? Let's delve into the science behind this revolutionary way of eating. The primary goal of a keto diet plan is to induce a state of ketosis in the body. Ketosis is a metabolic process that occurs when the body doesn't have enough glucose for energy and starts burning stored fats instead. By strictly limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, the body is forced to switch from using glucose as its primary fuel source to using fats. This results in the release of ketones, which are produced in the liver from the breakdown of fats. One of the main reasons why a keto diet plan is so effective for weight loss is that it helps to control hunger and cravings. When you consume carbohydrates, they are broken down into glucose, which causes a spike in blood sugar levels. This, in turn, leads to a rapid rise in insulin levels, which can cause cravings and overeating. By significantly reducing carbohydrate intake, the body maintains stable blood sugar and insulin levels, thereby reducing hunger and the desire to snack unnecessarily Moreover, the high-fat content of a keto diet plan helps to keep you feeling full and satisfied for longer periods. Fats are known to be more satiating compared to carbohydrates, which means you won't find yourself constantly thinking about your next meal or craving unhealthy snacks throughout the day. This not only aids in weight loss but also promotes a more balanced and sustainable approach to eating. Another advantage of a keto diet plan is its ability to boost metabolism and fat burning. When the body enters a state of ketosis, it becomes more efficient at utilizing fats for energy. This leads to an increased rate of fat burning, which can help you achieve your weight loss goals faster. Additionally, the consumption of healthy fats, such as avocados, nuts, and olive oil, provides essential nutrients and promotes overall well-being. It's important to note that while a keto diet plan can be highly effective for weight loss, it may not be suitable for everyone. If you have any underlying health conditions or are taking medication, it's crucial to consult with a healthcare professional before starting any new diet. Additionally, it's important to ensure that you're consuming a variety of nutrient-dense foods and meeting your daily nutritional requirements. In conclusion, a keto diet plan can be a powerful tool in the battle against excess weight. By limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, you can induce a state of ketosis, which promotes fat burning and helps to control hunger and cravings. However, it's essential to approach any diet plan with caution and consult with a healthcare professional to ensure its suitability for your individual needs. With the right guidance and a commitment to healthy eating, you can achieve your weight loss goals and embark on a journey towards a healthier and happier you. Click here to get it keto diet plan weight loss promolink https://www.digistore24.com/redir/411008/Abrar769/ https://tinyurl.com/548hedaf
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7146 Views
  • Do you want to lose weight with a keto diet plan? Promolink here

    In today's world, where obesity and weight-related issues have reached epidemic proportions, a keto diet plan has emerged as an effective solution for those looking to shed those extra pounds. The ketogenic diet, or simply keto, is a low-carb, high-fat diet that has gained immense

    popularity due to its ability to promote weight loss without compromising on taste and satiety.

    But what exactly is a keto diet plan, and how does it work? Let's delve into the science behind this revolutionary way of eating.

    The primary goal of a keto diet plan is to induce a state of ketosis in the body. Ketosis is a metabolic process that occurs when the body doesn't have enough glucose for energy and starts burning stored fats instead.

    By strictly limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, the body is forced to switch from using glucose as its primary fuel source to using fats. This results in the release of ketones, which are produced in the liver from the breakdown of fats.

    One of the main reasons why a keto diet plan is so effective for weight loss is that it helps to control hunger and cravings. When you consume carbohydrates, they are broken down into glucose, which causes a spike in blood sugar levels.

    This, in turn, leads to a rapid rise in insulin levels, which can cause cravings and overeating. By significantly reducing carbohydrate intake, the body maintains stable blood sugar and insulin levels, thereby reducing hunger and the desire to snack unnecessarily.

    Moreover, the high-fat content of a keto diet plan helps to keep you feeling full and satisfied for longer periods. Fats are known to be more satiating compared to carbohydrates, which means you won't find yourself constantly thinking about your next meal or craving unhealthy snacks throughout the day. This not only aids in weight loss but also promotes a more balanced and sustainable approach to eating.


    Another advantage of a keto diet plan is its ability to boost metabolism and fat burning. When the body enters a state of ketosis, it becomes more efficient at utilizing fats for energy. This leads to an increased rate of fat burning, which can help you achieve your weight loss goals faster. Additionally, the consumption of healthy fats, such as avocados, nuts, and olive oil, provides essential nutrients and promotes overall well-being.

    It's important to note that while a keto diet plan can be highly effective for weight loss, it may not be suitable for everyone. If you have any underlying health conditions or are taking medication, it's crucial to consult with a healthcare professional before starting any new diet. Additionally, it's important to ensure that you're consuming a variety of nutrient-dense foods and meeting your daily nutritional requirements.

    In conclusion, a keto diet plan can be a powerful tool in the battle against excess weight. By limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, you can induce a state of ketosis, which promotes fat burning and helps to control hunger and cravings.
    However, it's essential to approach any diet plan with caution and consult with a healthcare professional to ensure its suitability for your individual needs. With the right guidance and a commitment to healthy eating, you can achieve your weight loss goals and embark on a journey towards a healthier and happier you.
    Click here to get it keto diet plan weight loss promolink
    https://www.digistore24.com/redir/411008/Abrar769/
    https://tinyurl.com/548hedaf
    Do you want to lose weight with a keto diet plan? Promolink here In today's world, where obesity and weight-related issues have reached epidemic proportions, a keto diet plan has emerged as an effective solution for those looking to shed those extra pounds. The ketogenic diet, or simply keto, is a low-carb, high-fat diet that has gained immense popularity due to its ability to promote weight loss without compromising on taste and satiety. But what exactly is a keto diet plan, and how does it work? Let's delve into the science behind this revolutionary way of eating. The primary goal of a keto diet plan is to induce a state of ketosis in the body. Ketosis is a metabolic process that occurs when the body doesn't have enough glucose for energy and starts burning stored fats instead. By strictly limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, the body is forced to switch from using glucose as its primary fuel source to using fats. This results in the release of ketones, which are produced in the liver from the breakdown of fats. One of the main reasons why a keto diet plan is so effective for weight loss is that it helps to control hunger and cravings. When you consume carbohydrates, they are broken down into glucose, which causes a spike in blood sugar levels. This, in turn, leads to a rapid rise in insulin levels, which can cause cravings and overeating. By significantly reducing carbohydrate intake, the body maintains stable blood sugar and insulin levels, thereby reducing hunger and the desire to snack unnecessarily. Moreover, the high-fat content of a keto diet plan helps to keep you feeling full and satisfied for longer periods. Fats are known to be more satiating compared to carbohydrates, which means you won't find yourself constantly thinking about your next meal or craving unhealthy snacks throughout the day. This not only aids in weight loss but also promotes a more balanced and sustainable approach to eating. Another advantage of a keto diet plan is its ability to boost metabolism and fat burning. When the body enters a state of ketosis, it becomes more efficient at utilizing fats for energy. This leads to an increased rate of fat burning, which can help you achieve your weight loss goals faster. Additionally, the consumption of healthy fats, such as avocados, nuts, and olive oil, provides essential nutrients and promotes overall well-being. It's important to note that while a keto diet plan can be highly effective for weight loss, it may not be suitable for everyone. If you have any underlying health conditions or are taking medication, it's crucial to consult with a healthcare professional before starting any new diet. Additionally, it's important to ensure that you're consuming a variety of nutrient-dense foods and meeting your daily nutritional requirements. In conclusion, a keto diet plan can be a powerful tool in the battle against excess weight. By limiting carbohydrate intake and increasing the consumption of healthy fats, you can induce a state of ketosis, which promotes fat burning and helps to control hunger and cravings. However, it's essential to approach any diet plan with caution and consult with a healthcare professional to ensure its suitability for your individual needs. With the right guidance and a commitment to healthy eating, you can achieve your weight loss goals and embark on a journey towards a healthier and happier you. Click here to get it keto diet plan weight loss promolink https://www.digistore24.com/redir/411008/Abrar769/ https://tinyurl.com/548hedaf
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6485 Views
  • SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING
    STRENGTHENS MEMORY
    SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY
    Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you?
    Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing.
    Natural Formula
    Plant Ingredients
    Non-GMO
    Easy To Swallow
    No Stimulants
    Non-Habit Forming
    SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING
    STRENGTHENS MEMORY
    SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY
    Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you?
    Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing.
    Natural Formula
    Plant Ingredients
    Non-GMO
    Easy To Swallow
    No Stimulants
    Non-Habit Forming
    60-DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
    Cortexi comes with a 100% money back guarantee - 60 full days from your original purchase. If you're not totally and completely satisfied with our product or your results within the first 60 days simply let us know by calling our toll-free number or dropping us an email and we'll gladly give you a full refund within 48 hours of the product being returned. That's right - simply return the product, even your empty bottles, anytime within 60 days of your purchase and you'll receive a full, no-questions-asked refund (minus shipping and handling fees). click here to get it promolink
    https://trycortexi.com/store-ds.php#aff=Abrar769
    SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING STRENGTHENS MEMORY SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you? Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing. Natural Formula Plant Ingredients Non-GMO Easy To Swallow No Stimulants Non-Habit Forming SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING STRENGTHENS MEMORY SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you? Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing. Natural Formula Plant Ingredients Non-GMO Easy To Swallow No Stimulants Non-Habit Forming 60-DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED Cortexi comes with a 100% money back guarantee - 60 full days from your original purchase. If you're not totally and completely satisfied with our product or your results within the first 60 days simply let us know by calling our toll-free number or dropping us an email and we'll gladly give you a full refund within 48 hours of the product being returned. That's right - simply return the product, even your empty bottles, anytime within 60 days of your purchase and you'll receive a full, no-questions-asked refund (minus shipping and handling fees). click here to get it promolink https://trycortexi.com/store-ds.php#aff=Abrar769
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2436 Views
  • SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING
    STRENGTHENS MEMORY
    SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY
    Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you?
    Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing.
    Natural Formula
    Plant Ingredients
    Non-GMO
    Easy To Swallow
    No Stimulants
    Non-Habit Forming
    SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING
    STRENGTHENS MEMORY
    SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY
    Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you?
    Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing.
    Natural Formula
    Plant Ingredients
    Non-GMO
    Easy To Swallow
    No Stimulants
    Non-Habit Forming
    60-DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
    Cortexi comes with a 100% money back guarantee - 60 full days from your original purchase. If you're not totally and completely satisfied with our product or your results within the first 60 days simply let us know by calling our toll-free number or dropping us an email and we'll gladly give you a full refund within 48 hours of the product being returned. That's right - simply return the product, even your empty bottles, anytime within 60 days of your purchase and you'll receive a full, no-questions-asked refund (minus shipping and handling fees). click here to get it promolink
    https://trycortexi.com/store-ds.php#aff=Abrar769
    SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING STRENGTHENS MEMORY SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you? Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing. Natural Formula Plant Ingredients Non-GMO Easy To Swallow No Stimulants Non-Habit Forming SUPPORTS HEALTHY HEARING STRENGTHENS MEMORY SHARPENS MENTAL ACUITY Are you worried about damaging your hearing? Have you experienced any mental fog or a decrease in your memory as of late? Is the thought of having to rely on a hearing aid frightening to you? Well, I’ve got good news for you. You can take steps to protect your ears from damage starting today. Our new and improved Cortexi formula works to shield your ears using only research-backed, all-natural ingredients combined in the precise ratios required to support healthy hearing. Natural Formula Plant Ingredients Non-GMO Easy To Swallow No Stimulants Non-Habit Forming 60-DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED Cortexi comes with a 100% money back guarantee - 60 full days from your original purchase. If you're not totally and completely satisfied with our product or your results within the first 60 days simply let us know by calling our toll-free number or dropping us an email and we'll gladly give you a full refund within 48 hours of the product being returned. That's right - simply return the product, even your empty bottles, anytime within 60 days of your purchase and you'll receive a full, no-questions-asked refund (minus shipping and handling fees). click here to get it promolink https://trycortexi.com/store-ds.php#aff=Abrar769
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2314 Views
More Results