Dr Bell's comprehensive report on the topic:

"Rational Policy over Panic: Re-evaluating Pandemic Risk within the Global Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Agenda"

https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic

essl.leeds.ac.uk

Rational Policy Over Panic | School of Politics and International Studies | University of Leeds

Já repararam que até no wokismo somos machistas?

Não vejo ninguém perguntar: o que é ser Homem?

Senhores querem usar cabelo comprido, salto alto e unhas de gel? Força!

Não digam é que são mulheres (ou vice-versa).

No meio disto tudo há aqui muita homofobia implícita.

E pronto já veio uma "especialista" dizer que "pessoas que menstruam" é linguagem dos documentos internacionais e que há pessoas que menstruam e não se consideram mulheres.

Voltamos à questão: o que é ser mulher?

Qual a percentagem de pessoas com real disforia de género?

Devemos aceitar as pessoas como elas são ou fingir que são algo que nunca serão verdadeiramente só para alimentar uma indústria de milhões?

Não Não são só palavras.

https://archive.ph/2qftP

archive.ph

Measures do not prevent deaths, transmission is not by contact, masks…

archived 21 Jul 2024 01:10:51 UTC

https://collateralglobal.org/article/the-biomedical-empire-during-the-covid-pandemic/

Collateral Global

The Biomedical Empire during the Covid pandemic - Collateral Global

Kevin Bardosh sits down with Barbara Katz Rothman, a professor of medical sociology and women’s studies at City University of New York. Prof. Rothman is the author of the 2021 book, The Biomedical Empire: Lessons Learned from the Covid-19 Pandemic. We discuss…

🇺🇸🇨🇦🇬🇧🇮🇪🇦🇺🇳🇿🇿🇦 The FDA has quietly removed protections for people who are the subject of research.

In certain exceptional cases, for people unable to participate or for urgent, life-threatening emergencies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been able to authorize research without informed consent. At the end of last year, the FDA quietly put in place a regulation that delegates the decision on waivers to each individual Institutional Review Board (IRB). These IRB committees are found at clinical research organizations, large and small universities, pharmaceutical companies, and multi-billion dollar corporations that provide IRB services to research groups.
Based on vague guidelines, in practice it gives thousands of IRB committees the unilateral ability to determine that researchers do not need to obtain truly informed consent from research participants.

Authors Tom Nicholson, a policy researcher, and Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford Medical School and one of the three professors who launched the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 for a less restrictive approach to the COVID-19 pandemic, provide three examples of how this system could be abused:

1. making it easier to quickly approve controversial research projects that affect both the environment and medicine. One example is the Gates Foundation-backed Oxitec program, which is currently releasing millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. The FDA approved the program after a lengthy process. Despite years of debate and opposition from local residents, the researchers will not have to obtain informed consent from local residents. Since the FDA approved this highly questionable study, surely local IRBs across the country would have no problem approving many such projects without informed consent if millions of research dollars were at stake.

2. it has been proposed to add statins (drugs that affect blood cholesterol, used in cardiovascular disease, efficacy highly debated and the medication produces relatively serious side effects, our note) to water supplies, although no clinical trial has studied this tactic. The new rule makes it more likely that an IRB at a local university, which considers statins to pose "minimal risk", could approve a study where it would be impossible to get informed consent from the water drinkers in the area. Are Americans ready for such studies to be fast-tracked by their local ethics committee?

3. government-funded studies of online posts aimed at identifying "misinformation". Under the guise of conducting misinformation research projects, entities like the Stanford Internet Observatory have laundered government demands for censorship of speech - even real speech - in online environments like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). The literal purpose of this research is to harm specific research subjects by censoring their speech and labeling them as purveyors of misinformation. In 2021, a conservative journalist sued Stanford University for defaming him via this research project, which never sought his informed consent to be a subject of their study. It was never clear why Stanford's IRB approved a study that harmed participants without requiring informed consent. Under the FDA's new rule, IRBs everywhere could make their own decisions to bypass the informed consent rule.

https://www.newsweek.com/fda-just-quietly-gutted-protections-human-subjects-research-opinion-1922464

Newsweek

The FDA Quietly Gutted Protections for Human Subjects in Research | Opinion

Risky, unethical research approved under the new rule will harm the people researchers are supposed to help with their work.The FDA should rescind this rule.