Alexis's Blog
If you’ve read anything about the possible lab origins of COVID-19, you’re likely familiar with the roles of Anthony Fauci, David Chistian “Chris” Hassell, Peter Daszak, Shi Zenghli, and Ralph Baric.
Their names were mentioned frequently on June 29 at an expert forum held by House Republicans entitled “Led By Science: The COVID-19 Origin Story.” Anthony Fauci and David Hassell were even invited to speak, along with NIH director Francis Collins. All three refused.
Each of the people I’ve profiled in my Gain-of-Function Hall of Shame series is complicit in the hunting and manipulation of bat coronaviruses that likely resulted in an industrial accident (or worse) causing SARS-CoV-2 to emerge in the vicinity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in late 2019.
As of June 21, 2021, the World Health Organization now says: Children should not be vaccinated for COVID-19 for the moment.
Even as the cardiac risks and heart inflammation affecting children and young adults following COVID-19 vaccination is gaining visibility, a concerted effort is underway to coerce this same group to get the vaccine anyway.
The same day that the WHO said not to vaccinate children, a White House spokesperson said that they planned to start vaccinating children 12 and younger by the end of the year or early 2022.
With lower rates of infection among children compared with adults, the CDC’s recommendations are perplexing. Why encourage a vaccine that has no long term safety data to support its use and carries more risk to children’s health than the actual disease?
We’re being told there’s an urgent public health necessity to censor vaccine misinformation.
What is this assumption based on? Who gets to decide what is “misinformation” and whether it should be censored?
These aren’t theoretical questions for the Organic Consumers Association.
On May 27, the entire Democratic leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee sent letters to Facebook, Google and Twitter asking these social media companies to de-platform a hit list of organic and natural health experts and organizations, including OCA, accusing us―without evidence―of spreading vaccine disinformation.
In March, the New Yorker ran a “Letter from the U.K.” by Anna Russell, “The Fight Against Vaccine Misinformation.” The article provided clues to who’s behind the efforts to deplatform us.
Despite our reticence and self-censorship, the Organic Consumers Association was put on a list of vaccine safety advocates that the House Energy & Commerce Committee has sent to Facebook, Google and Twitter, demanding our deplatforming.
We have a theory about how this hit list was compiled. The targeted vaccine safety advocates are all natural health practitioners and educators and supporters of organic food and farming.
Has the unholy alliance between agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry, exemplified by the Bayer-Monsanto merger, given these corporations an added incentive to team up to take out their biggest detractors?
That possibility occurred to us when, despite our reticence and self-censorship, the Organic Consumers Association was put on a hit list of vaccine safety advocates known as the “Disinformation Dozen.”
We noticed that Voices for Vaccines was one of the pharmaceutical front-groups that’s been circulating the hit list and that it is a project of the Task Force for Global Health, which is funded by vaccine and pharmaceutical companies―including Bayer.
There are proven and profitable agricultural practices that have the power to draw excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
But, before agriculture can be a climate change solution, it has to deal with its own greenhouse gas pollution.
Synthetic fertilizers and factory farms must be phased out, while regenerative organic practices that sequester carbon are ramped up.
There’s certainly a lot of potential, especially on grasslands where ruminant animals can forage for the entirety of their lives instead of being fattened on synthetic-fertilizer-grown grains in greenhouse-gas-polluting factory farm feedlots.
We can get grazing animals off grain and phase out of factory farms by increasing on-farm and farmer-owned processing capacity, so that farmers can act independently of the meat and grain monopolies.
Emperor Gates has a new decree: “All rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.”
Bill Gates has invested in Impossible Foods whose CEO, Pat Brown, says his genetically engineered synthetic meat substitutes will replace the use of animals by 2035.
You’d think the Impossible Foods pitch would be about the horrors of factory farming. Instead, Gates and Brown take aim at regenerative organic agriculture and grass-fed beef. According to Fortune.com: “Gates and Brown believe that genetically modified seeds and chemical herbicides, in the right doses––and not land-intensive organic farming––are crucial to curbing carbon emissions.”
That old lie about organic farming has been thoroughly debunked, and real climate activists know “It’s not the cow, it’s the how.”
There are plenty of things we can do to help the climate, from eating locally grown regenerative organic food to reducing our fossil fuel consumption by insulating our homes, installing solar power, taking public transit or driving an electric car.
But, most of us find ourselves responsible for carbon emissions that can’t easily be avoided, whether it’s from a flight we have to take or the natural gas lines into our homes.
Increasingly, businesses are making it easy for consumers to offset the greenhouse gas associated with their purchases by offering carbon credits. Some businesses even set carbon-neutral goals and commit to completely offsetting unavoidable emissions.
On January 27, 2021, President Joe Biden signed his “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” This historic action commited the U.S. to achieving “significant short-term global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and net-zero global emissions by mid-century or before.”
Biden’s climate EO was immediately likened to the Green New Deal resolution championed by the Sunrise Movement.
One big difference between the two is, while the Green New Deal sticks to direct government investment in proven climate solutions, Biden’s climate EO relies, in part, on “market-based mechanisms” and “robust standards for the market ... to catalyze private sector investment.”
The differences between the Green New Deal and Biden’s climate EO wouldn’t have us so concerned if it weren’t for the support for three dangerous false solutions that his Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack brings to the Biden-Harris Cabinet.
President Biden’s decision to reinstate Tom “Mr. Monsanto” Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary is a disaster for nutrition and farming, but his choice of Deb Haaland for Interior Secretary, managing the 500 million acres of public lands, could benefit the climate in ways that could also improve food security.
