Covid-19: Did US Surgeon General Just Ask Social Media to Censor Covid-19 Vaccine Posts?

Original Image on BBC.com

On July 15, 2021, the White House and the US Surgeon General released a statement expressing concerns that social media was allowing average citizens to spread Covid-19 misinformation that conflicted with the stated goal of herd immunity and a 70% vaccination rate for all adult populations.  Additionally, there was a clear request for these outlets to curb the publication of such information.  Was this a not-so-subtle way of telling social media to get with the program or else?

Normally, I take the position that the difference between free speech and libel is in the mind of the reader/viewer and I take my lumps when my opinion is too sharp for others to handle.  But after Facebook has refused to run ads for a well researched, six month project that intends to bring out alternative lines of climate change thinking, some warning bells have sounded.  Why would anyone be interested in censoring productive discussion whether it be about Covid-19 or climate change unless it interfered with a stated agenda?  

Still, I am not ready to slide into the mindset of a police state and prefer to maintain a tone of civility when I point out government actions which fail to rise to the level of "smart".  At the same time, I look at the federal government as an institution that has simply painted itself into a corner with years of bad decisions based on economically driven advice and Intel.  The last time our country saw this level of misinformation, it lead to the war in Afghanistan. This time, however, the war is being fought on native soil and the combatants are its own citizens. 

By its nature, government cannot be completely transparent, especially in the case of national emergencies.  The deals that occur behind closed doors are a necessary part of the process but when those making the decisions have little or no education about what they are deciding, then "revolutionary" ideas have to surface for the good of everyone.  What the administration has labeled as "misinformation" has come about by trying to force nature to comply with economic demands in a way that goes against practical and common science. That is the reason people are hesitant to follow this lead. It doesn't matter whether the administration is Republican or Democrat. Shoving a one-solution-only decision down the throats of Americans has never worked well and the federal government should know that by now. 

Contrary to what the government has tried to spin, there is a great deal of evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are far from perfect and that they were never going to have the desired results of a quick and timely end to this all too common virus. it is the assumption that citizens are not rational and knowledgeable enough to add value to the discussion that rankles this author.  Allowing barely educated social media addicts as well as self proclaimed social justice experts to judge the validity of science are just two reasons to be  outraged. 

Here are a few evidence-based points that the administration has avoided mentioning.  Interestingly, this research comes mostly from studies filed on the government's own National Institute of Health research archives.  The reader can decide what is and is not reasonable information.

• Domesticated animals and wildlife are often carriers for a type of coronavirus that is specific to their species. Veterinarians are well informed about the virus and its nature. Coronavirus is not manufactured in a lab but is found anywhere there are colonies of animals living in high numbers. Bats and feral cats are two of the most common.  A main characteristic of the virus is its ability to mutate quickly and infect other species such as humans. That contamination can happen without warning and anywhere animals and people live in close contact. 
• Because it can often be dormant in the body for long periods of time, a test for Covid-19 may not always pick up the active virus.  If there were no testing protocols in place, this would just be seen as a bad allergy or cold season and deaths would be attributed to pneumonia, heart failure, stroke or several other respiratory conditions.
  
• Many rural communities may have experienced widespread Covid-19 outbreaks in the weeks before the government identified the virus and went into lock down. Rural populations are not as isolated as might be thought. Over-the-road truckers along major highways, holiday trips and special vacations during school breaks could have spread the virus to every part of the country before professionals even knew it existed. This possibility is pushed to the side in dealing with vaccination recommendations and mask mandates. Rather, rural populations are seen as stubborn and uneducated.
  
• For decades, pharmaceutical companies have tried to produce human and veterinarian vaccines to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.  There has been little success. Using a computer to help speed the process of identifying the infection did not change the nature of this highly adaptable, commonplace virus nor does it seem that it was more effective than past attempts.
  
• Testing of the Covid-19 vaccine during lock down and during mask mandates would have compromised drug trial results.  Using natural methods of infection prevention such as social distancing and face coverings made the vaccines appear more  effective than they are/were.  In a recent news article from the Israeli Times, that country, which was one of the first to be fully vaccinated, estimates the overall effectiveness of the vaccine to be less than 40%. Other sources speculate the protection period to be no more than 70 days.  Attempting to force vaccinations with low efficacy rates serves little purpose in bringing this pandemic to a close but makes huge profits for the drug companies that produced them.  What is the real goal here?
  
• Healthcare methods that use immunosuppressants as part of a regular treatment put people at risk for contracting the virus multiple times. First, these drugs interfere with the vaccine and second, they weaken the natural response to additional infections. In a study published on the CDC website in August 2020, even health care professionals could not estimate the number of people using these drugs and expressed concern about how vaccinations would react to their use.  Could these break-through cases be more about conflicting medical treatments or is the vaccine just not worth taking? Unfortunately, no one knows the answer for sure.
  

To be clear, vaccines are a significant way to prevent major illness, but natural immunity builds over time and the effectiveness of receiving multiple vaccines each and every year has not been studied, especially when patients use medications that conflict with these vaccines. Vaccines should not be an automatic substitute for good nutrition, reasonable personal space and healthy living. 

Now two weeks after the original statement first hit the news cycle, there are other developments which impact this topic. On July 16, 2021, the FDA announced that it would take up to 6 months to act on final approval of the Pfizer vaccine and recently, the CDC has reversed its decision on indoor masking of all people, vaccinated and unvaccinated.  These precautions should not be needed if these vaccines did the job they are supposed to do.  

 

So, who is promoting misinformation--people like me who look at the history and nature of this virus or those who want to fix this medical issue quickly so that wealth can again flow in the States. That is the question which is ultimately up for debate.  

 Covid-19 may be the force this country needs for government to finally realize there is more to life than world trade, stock market prices and an ever higher standard of living that only some enjoy.  Sometimes, good health that comes naturally, personal safety and a reasonable level of comfort is all that is really needed to be happy and successful.  That, after all, is what is guaranteed by the Constitution.   

Good Point Arizona: Voters Switch Parties in Record Numbers

** While Arizona's state political committee has chosen to censure Kyrsten Sinema (a fancy way of voicing disapproval with no real power behind it)  for voting her values rather than blindly following the political machine, the shift from party affiliation to independent status may explain Sinema's strong stand for a relatively new member of Congress.  It reminds us that political parties have become bullies who expect loyalty to the party rather than constituents.  Arizona figured this out a year ago. Wonder how many other states will see a rise in independent status over the next few months as mid-term elections loom ahead?

This story was originally post  in July of 2021, The development popped up on my news app.

Before explaining the news, maybe I should explain a bit about my attitude toward what is now referred to as "Social Issues".  This term is a catch all for anything any one wants to fuss about. But fussing in and of itself it unproductive.  I am an advocate for quiet, peaceful, individual (no mob protests for this girl) and active methods of speaking out against a government that is driven more by elections than citizen needs.  There is but one caveat--the debate, no matter how heated, needs to be respectful and civil. Investing in charitable causes, writing letters to the editor based on solid points (and blogs) about specific issues and supporting those businesses that seem to jive with a personal value system are all part of a good healthy way to protest an out of control government, That said, Arizona voters may have come up with an even better way of drawing attention to the dysfunction of government and that is to leave both parties and register as independents.  What a wonderful way to get politicians' attention!

While I am not able to speak to the accuracy of the figures in the image above (statistical research can be easily manipulated), it seems Arizona voters have decided to make their attitudes with both parties clear and it is a message that the country will be watching.  

In today's national elections, there are only four states that really matter--California, Texas, New York and Florida.  This is based on their populations and none are considered rural or disadvantaged states.  In the same way as politicians go after the larger states, it is the cities that are the focus of most local elections. Rural communities and their lower income populations are not considered unless the state is a "swing" state and could go either way. 

Arizona may have figured out a way to get the federal government to pay attention to it, and it may be a good idea for all voters in smaller states to consider adopting an independent political stand for the foreseeable future. 

Why? Because it sends a message that means rural and disadvantaged communities can no longer be taken for granted by either party. Often described with disdain because they do not vote for an agenda which is financially unsustainable and wasteful, rural communities are far more independent in their thinking than journalists and politicians realize. Even though rural America is where most of this country's food is produced, and most of its raw materials for manufacturing come from, political parties typically think rural communities are still in a Great Depression mindset--any job, any opportunity, any service is better than nothing. Perhaps its time for that mindset to change and stand up for rural rights. Other reasons to consider becoming an independent include these questions:

• Why is going into debt always the answer to any political problem?
  
• Why are politicians pushing vaccines and booster shots which are less than 50% effective and have been shown to have serious short term side effects for young people?
• Why is our country exporting food when we are in the middle of a massive drought and food shortage ourselves?
• Why did the government encourage companies to get larger and move out of disadvantaged communities which has only made them more vulnerable to cyber attacks and transportation hiccups?  
• Why is the CDC allowing families to go rent free while the federal government pays families and the unemployed large sums of money so that they CAN pay their bills? 

Politicians work hard but they work hard at being a politician. Leadership is something that is very different and missing these days.  Maybe it is up to individual citizens to take a small, quiet, active but respectful step to tell politicians it's time to be leaders.  

Congratulations Arizona for breaking ground on a trend that I hope will become a nationwide movement.  Good Job!

Climate Story Fake: Newsweek Claims Sea Creatures "Cooked" Alive

This is a one of several posts which relate to the author's book and study of climate change science.  Please read Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Human Health.  

Newsweek "Cooked" Alive Article

This bit of news was surprising coming from a reputable news agency like NewsWeek. On June 5, 2021 late at night author Aila Slisco quoted a Canadian news agency interview with Chris Harley, a marine biologist with the University of British Columbia. With no indication that this was anything more than a copied, albeit legally sourced, attempt at covering an issue that was three time zones away, information was limited to a file photo and a brief clip from the CBC news coverage with the transcript then turned into an article.   These types of climate change news arrticles are becoming more and more common as scientists risk their reputations and their schools in order to make the evening news.  Here is why Harley's observation is not only wrong but why as proclaimed expert he should know that sea life has a unique and wonderful instinct at self preservation. 

The evidence in the file photo was of a rocky beach with star fish, clams and other mollusks stranded at low tide.  Anyone along such a section of beach can attest that such barely mobile creatures are regularly in danger of drying out in the sun when the water recedes, even at much lower temperatures.   Harley claimed that "thousands" of such organisms lined the beaches and the smell was "putrid".  No head count and recovery of the specimens to study. No volunteers trying to save the stranded creatures, Just outcry and emotional predictions of the end of sea life.  Yes, the sea can smell pretty bad when it is hot out but it does not mean that a billion sea creatures "cooked" in the oceans as a result of the recent heat wave. 

As a cook and teacher of food science, the idea that anything could "cook" in the ocean, even in the middle of a heatwave is simply ridiculous.  Here's why.

1. In order for any food to "cook" it has to reach a temperature of over 160 degrees--at least 42 degrees higher than the highest reported air temperature in the Northwest.  With ocean currents regularly circulating water, it would be hard to sustain a temperature anywhere close to the air temperature of those days.

2. The CDC recommends a lukewarm bath temperature of no more than 110 degrees for children and babies. If the air temperature was less that 110 degrees there would have been nothing uncomfortable or dangerous in the water even for sea creatures.

3. Even a common sports fisherman understands that fish go to deeper and cooler water when the surface temperature of water becomes high. It is quite likely that fish and other creatures moved out of the area and into cooler waters during the heat wave but the idea that a "billion" creatures "cooked" is an unprofessional way of Harley and the University of British Columbia to make a plea for climate change advocacy. 

What makes scientists such as Harley and NewsWeek as a publication go after the sensational rather than the factual?  It comes down to one thing.  There is no proof, other than sensational stories and computer models, that greenhouse gases are to blame for climate change. Without proof that this version of climate change is real, advocates must look to emotions for support.  

Seems to me it would be far better to find the actual cause of climate change than to continue to embarrass science by promoting myths.  Climate change is real but admitting the cause and acceptng the solution is not something that comes easy to those in power. Air Pollution's the Answer! and Clean Air Policies are the cause, read the book to learn the details.  

 

 

Climate Study Fail: Yale Study Saves Water but Would Increase Drought

This is one of many posts in regard to climate change that has resulted form the author's publication of her book Air Pollution's the Answer!: How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.  Available on Amazon, Kindle and other providers. 

In the latest study from a prominent institution that promotes government policy more than sound environmental science, a Yale study wants to keep water from evaporating by putting solar panels across California's canals.  While this is a good use of space, it misses on one very important point--without water evaporation there are no clouds and without clouds there is no rain and without rain there is no water in the canals that are now covered with solar panels. Another climate study fail that confuses and desensitizes the public. 

Yale Climate Change Study

The danger of this type of junk science is great.  Largely made up of computer models and grad students who need to justify grant money for tuition and the school's program, studies like this do only one thing--promote a faulty agenda and confuse the real science that is causing climate change.  

The cruel fact is that without particulate matter (aka common dust and dirt) in the atmosphere (controlled by federal and state law) and without water that evaporates from things like canals, lakes, rivers, oceans and swimming pools, there are no clouds and without clouds there is no rain and without rain there is nothing but drought and heat waves.

For fifty years, federal and state governments, particularly those in California, have gone out of their way to clean up the air.  In doing so, they stripped the atmosphere of any chance it had to keep the environment in check. Clean air policies are the cause of climate change not greenhouse gases.  

It's time for citizens to decide. Rolling back clean air policies could "fix" climate change in as little as 5 years but federal and state governments would rather spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure to accommodate climate change that to solve it.  Isn't that called "Gaslighting". 

Hey Average American: Which do you want solar panels and heat waves or a few more cloudy days and rain?  The choice is yours.

New Book: Air Pollution's The Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health

Author Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon and Just a Touch of Sass.com are pleased to announce the release of their first book entitled Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.  It is available globally and in both digital and paperback formats.  

Contrary to what the Internet and social media tells us about climate change, there is a wealth of science out there that points to a far easier and quicker solution to climate change.  This book was written for the general public so that they can judge for themselves whether "old science" is better than "internet fiction".   It is available on several digital and print platforms.