In response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed over three months ago, in August of 2021, the <a href="https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/020-Second-Joint-Status-Report-8989f1fed17e2d919391d8df1978006e.pdf">U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asked a federal judge for 55 years </a>to review its data before releasing it to the public in its entirety. The data refers to the FDA’s decision to license what is now known as the Comirnaty vaccine against Covid-19, produced by Pfizer in collaboration with BioNTech. Back in November of 2020, when considering Pfizer-BioNTech’s request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of its product, the FDA promised that: “In keeping with the FDA’s commitment to ensuring full transparency, dialogue and efficiency, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee … will meet to discuss the totality and safety and effectiveness data provided … The FDA understands there is tremendous public interest regarding vaccines for COVID-19. We remain committed to keeping the public informed about the evaluation of the data … so that once available, the public and the medical community can have trust and confidence in receiving the vaccine for our families and ourselves.” In September of 2021, when amending its EUA to include booster doses, the FDA reiterated its commitment to transparency, writing: “As we learn more about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines … we will continue to evaluate the rapidly changing science and keep the public informed…” The FDA noted at the time that it was studying data provided not only by Pfizer-BioNTech, but also from the “Israeli Ministry of Health, the University of Bristol, U.K. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC].” Meanwhile, a group of over 30 academics, professors, and scientists had submitted a request for the data the FDA had pledged to provide for public perusal. The group, known as the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) includes reputed professionals such as Professor Harvey Risch, an epidemiologist at Yale School of Public Health and others affiliated with Harvard, UCLA, and Brown. When a month passed without a response from the FDA, Siri &amp; Glimstad LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of PHMPT against the FDA requesting that the “Court enter an order requiring the FDA to produce all documents and data submitted by Pfizer … 108 days from today,” noting that, “This 108-day period is the same amount of time it took the FDA to review the responsive documents for the far more intricate task of licensing Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.” They added that, “To require less is to render FOIA meaningless, the FDA’s promise of transparency a lie, and to send a signal to every American that while the federal executive branch is shielding Pfizer from any liability for injuries from its product and requiring employers, schools, hospitals and the military to expel those that don’t receive this product, it is protecting the very documents Pfizer provided to our taxpayer-funded health agency to obtain licensure to be able to sell this product.” In its response, the FDA wrote: “FDA proposes to process and produce the non-exempt portions of responsive records at a rate of 500 pages per month,” at which rate the entire body of data it intends to release (which is only the non-exempt portions) will not be released before the year 2076. The FDA further noted that, “Plaintiff’s request (as set forth below) that FDA process and produce the non-exempt portions of more than 329,000 pages in four months would force FDA to process more than 80,000 pages per month,” and explained that it lacked the necessary staff to process the data any faster. The FDA added that due to the nature of the data, it would be obligated to take especial care with releasing it in order to avoid compromising “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer of BioNTech…” which meant that it would have to go through the data “on a line-by-line basis.” “As should be apparent,” the FDA continued, “the review conducted by FDA scientists when considering to approve a product is entirely different from the review conducted by FDA government information specialists when considering whether FDA must keep certain information confidential.” Furthermore, the FDA denied that it was required to release the data in a timely fashion, writing that, “FDA’s regulations do not require or suggest that FDA will release all publicly releasable data immediately after a biologics license application is approved.” Responding to the FDA’s arguments, Aaron Siri of Siri &amp; Glimstad said in a statement, “It was exactly 108 days for the FDA from the time Pfizer started releasing the licensing records to the time the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine. Taking the FDA’s word for it, it has conducted an intensive, reliable, thorough and complete review and analysis of these documents to ensure that Pfizer’s vaccine is safe and effective for licensing. While he can do a thorough review of Pfizer documents in 108 days, it now takes more than 20,000 days to make those documents publicly available.” En español <a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2/espanol/fda-solicita-55-anos-para-revisar-sus-datos-de-pfizer-biontech-antes-de-darlos-a-conocer-al-publico/">aquí</a>

fda-asks-for-55-years-to-review-its-pfizer-biontech-data-before-releasing-to-public.jpg

FDA asks for 55 years to review its Pfizer-BioNTech data before releasing to public

<h2 style="margin-left:0px;">Faux milk gaining ground</h2>The synbio (synthetic biology) industry is developing synthetic animal proteins including <a href="https://frontline.news/post/equating-lab-grown-meat-with-animal-meat-is-kooky-thinking-alliance-for-natural-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lab-grown meat</a> and <a href="https://frontline.news/post/got-milk-it-may-not-be-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">synbio milk</a>. In its coverage of synbio milk, Frontline News referred to a review by Su-Jit Lin of the HuffPost about Bored Cow, a company selling its synbio milk as "The first milk alternative to do it all."&nbsp;“All,” in this sense, means animal-free, vegan-friendly, nutritionally equivalent to milk, and useful in foods, cooking, and baking in the same ways as real milk, as Frontline News reported:<blockquote>Lin reported Ben Berman, co-founder, and CEO of Bored Cow, made, stating that Bored Cow was created to “replicate the taste, texture, nutrition and functionality of conventional dairy milk” and has a nutrition panel nearly identical, if not better than the generic milk he had in his fridge.&nbsp;</blockquote>Several other companies, as Frontline News highlighted, were also producing faux milk and cheese products, making the same claims as Bored Cow, that their products are good for animals, people, and the environment. &nbsp; &nbsp;<h4 style="margin-left:0px;">Reason to doubt</h4>Frontline News has previously reported on <a href="https://frontline.news/post/lab-grown-meat-not-slaughter-free-not-climate-friendly-as-claimed-can-it-cause-cancer-too" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">claims</a> by manufacturers of lab-grown meat which didn't hold up. Similarly, <a href="https://frontline.news/post/child-slave-labor-in-producing-ev-batteries-raises-serious-questions-about-clean-green-technologies" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">claims</a> by proponents of EV cars turned out to be dubious. It was, therefore, natural to wonder about the veracity of claims made by synbio milk manufacturers.<blockquote>Considering the magnitude of the synbio dairy industry, it is important to ask if the claims made by Bored Cow and other synbio dairy manufacturers are accurate.&nbsp;</blockquote>That is the topic of this article.<h2 style="margin-left:0px;">What could possibly go wrong?</h2>Despite Lin's enthusiastic report, there are many problems associated with synbio milk.<h3 style="margin-left:0px;">Specious claims</h3>Faux milk is promoted as being the same as real milk since the “precision fermentation” process used is based on a yeast genetically modified to produce whey protein, as <a href="https://anh-usa.org/frankenfoods-v2-exploiting-the-bioequivalence-principle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained</a> by the Alliance for Natural Health:<blockquote>Bored Cow is made with whey protein produced through a process called “precision fermentation,” a form of synbio. This involves taking a gene for whey protein and inserting it into a GE yeast. The yeast is put into fermentation tanks with other nutrients to help it grow. At the end the GE yeast is supposed to be filtered out, leaving only the milk protein. Bored Cow takes this protein and adds vitamins, minerals, and other ingredients to mimic the taste, consistency, and nutritional content of real cow’s milk.</blockquote>As Lin reported, Ben Berman, co-founder, and CEO of Bored Cow, boasted that his company's synthetic milk is as good as cow's milk. Berman said that Bored Cow has a nutrition panel nearly identical, if not better, than the generic milk he had in his fridge. &nbsp;However, as ANH explained, it is not likely that synbio milk is equivalent to real milk, because of the complexity of real milk. Cow's milk is more than just the vitamins listed on the nutrition panel.<blockquote>[It is not] very likely that Bored Cow is nutritionally equivalent to real milk. Just as meat is more than just protein, milk is far more than a simple combination of whey and various vitamins and minerals. Milkfat contains 400 different fatty acids. Milk has two types of proteins, whey and casein—and there are several different types of these two proteins contained in milk, and a whole bundle of other compounds like lactoferrin and bioactive peptides that help prime the immune system.</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:0px;">Nutritional dark matter - 92 unknown compounds&nbsp;</h3>When the Iowa-based Health Research Institute (HRI) tested Bored Cow's faux milk using full-spectrum molecular analysis technology, they discovered 92 compounds that are yet to be identified, and the presence of which are not noted on the nutritional panel. As Ken Rosenboro, editor for the Organic and Non-GMO Report <a href="https://non-gmoreport.com/not-so-precise-fermentation-lab-finds-92-unknown-compounds-in-synthetic-biology-milk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, HRI's chief science officer John Fagan was concerned that they could not identify those compounds.<blockquote>Calling them completely novel to our food,” he says. “They are things that we haven’t consumed as human beings.”Fagan scanned scientific literature and databases to determine whether the molecules had nutritional or other beneficial properties and found nothing.“I couldn’t even find the scientific name for the vast majority of the molecules present in the Bored Cow product. They are nutritional dark matter,” Fagan says.Fagan speculated that the unknown molecules could either be nutrients or waste products created during the fermentation process, stating that if they are waste products you wouldn't “necessarily want them in your food.”</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:0px;">GMO without the designation</h3>Rosenboro noted that Bored Cow and Perfect Day, the company that manufactures the whey protein Bored Cow uses, avoid using the term genetically engineered to describe the yeast used in the production of the whey protein, preferring “microflora” instead.&nbsp;<blockquote>Bored Cow and Perfect Day use the term “microflora” to avoid using “genetically engineered” or “GMO.”&nbsp;</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:0px;">Not cow protein&nbsp;</h3>As if the 92 unidentifiable compounds were not enough of a problem, HRI also found that the fake milk's protein, assumed to be cow protein, was mostly from the GMO yeast and not the milk protein.&nbsp;<blockquote>Perfect Day and Bored Cow both claim the milk protein is identical to the protein in cow’s milk but HRI’s tests found that the protein in Bored Cow’s milk was mostly from the GMO yeast and not the milk protein.</blockquote>The amino acids in the product were also different from those in real milk.<blockquote>“The amino acid composition of the protein that’s present in the Bored Cow milk is strikingly different from the amino acid composition of real milk,” Fagan says. “We have data that shows this is the case.”</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:0px;">Have some GMO DNA with your Bored Cow</h3>Fagan said that the GMO-derived microflora or yeast, which was supposed to have been removed during fermentation, was still found in the final product, Rosenboro also reported:<blockquote>“The (genetically engineered) DNA in these products is broken up or fragmented but is certainly still there,” Fagan says.Further he says tests are being developed to detect the GMO DNA in synthetic biology products like Bored Cow.</blockquote>GMO DNA in synbio products would have to be labeled as such under the bioengineered food disclosure law.<blockquote>“The reality is that all that’s required is to do a little bit of molecular biology and a GMO test can be developed for synbio products,” says Fagan who pioneered creating laboratory tests for GMO corn and soybeans when they were first commercialized in the late 1990s.</blockquote><blockquote>The presence of GMO DNA in Bored Cow and other synbio products would mean that they would have to be labeled under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure law. Right now, such products don’t require labeling.</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:0px;">No safety assessments</h3>Rosenboro explained that the FDA does not require safety assessments for synbio milk. That milk, however, with its 92 unknown compounds, would have to undergo testing in Europe and Canada as a novel food.&nbsp;ANH <a href="https://anh-usa.org/frankenfoods-v2-exploiting-the-bioequivalence-principle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elaborated</a> on the lack of safety assessment, explaining that Perfect Day, the manufacturer of the synbio whey protein used by Bored Cow, like some food manufacturers, claimed on its own that its product was GRAS (generally recognized as safe), utilizing the FDA's expedited process of GRAS <a href="https://qualitysmartsolutions.com/self-affirmed-gras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">self-affirmation</a> which does not require FDA review.<blockquote>The FDA must be on top of this, right? Wrong. Bored Cow has not undergone safety testing at the FDA. Perfect Day, the manufacturer of the synbio whey protein, determined it was “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) and voluntarily notified the FDA of this determination; in response the FDA said it had no questions. Given how rife the GRAS process is with conflicts of interest, this is akin to taking the company’s word for it that its novel synbio whey protein is safe.</blockquote><h3 style="margin-left:0px;">Climate-friendly? Not so fast&nbsp;</h3>Rosenboro referred to an article in Forbes by Errol Schweizer, partner of food and agriculture at Impakt, IQ, who questioned the claim that synbio is sustainable and climate-friendly. He wanted to know how the waste material would be disposed of; the amount of energy and resources used as compared to animal-based products; and the use of high-fructose corn syrup to feed the yeast as corn production is energy intensive and polluting.&nbsp;<h3 style="margin-left:0px;">Biology doesn't work like a computer program</h3>Synbio products are being likened to a computer program so all that needs to be done is to program the DNA like a computer, a flawed assumption according to Fagan. The analogy doesn't hold water, he says, since even yeast is infinitely more complicated than computer programs.<blockquote>An article in FoodNavigator USA even describes GMO yeasts being “programmed” to produce proteins. The problem is that the internal functioning of even the simplest organisms like a yeast is vastly more complex than computer programs.“It is a hollow analogy because it implies that you have the same kind of precise control in synthetic biology that you have programming a computer. It’s much more complex,” Fagan says. “Here we have an example of 92 unpredicted compounds being produced, and only a trace of the whey protein that you really want. It’s nothing like precision.” &nbsp;</blockquote>In the tweet below, Millions Against Monsanto links to a lecture by John Fagan about precision fermentation.<blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Listen to Dr. John Fagan’s Concerning New Findings: <a href="https://t.co/FruJ15ACrz">https://t.co/FruJ15ACrz</a> "His latest research takes aim at the synthetic biology industry, also called 'precision fermentation.'" <a href="https://t.co/3ZCZdgRuWW">pic.twitter.com/3ZCZdgRuWW</a>— Millions Against Monsanto (@againstmonsanto) <a href="https://twitter.com/againstmonsanto/status/1759246872303087825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div></blockquote>Related articles:<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/danger-ahead-changing-the-natural-world-with-genetic-engineering-and-artificial-intelligence" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Danger ahead! Changing the natural world with genetic engineering and artificial intelligence</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/got-milk-it-may-not-be-real" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Got milk? It might not be real</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/equating-lab-grown-meat-with-animal-meat-is-kooky-thinking-alliance-for-natural-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equating lab-grown meat with animal meat is 'kooky thinking' - Alliance for Natural Health</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/lab-grown-meat-not-slaughter-free-not-climate-friendly-as-claimed-can-it-cause-cancer-too">Lab-grown meat not slaughter-free, not climate-friendly as claimed. Can it cause cancer too?</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/a-little-bit-of-pfizer-in-your-cheese-fake-rennet-bypassed-additive-approval-process">A little bit of Pfizer in your cheese? Fake rennet bypassed additive approval process</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/can-t-digest-cheese-maybe-you-can-tolerate-cheese-made-with-natural-rennet-instead-of-pfizer-s-gmo-version">Can't digest cheese? Maybe you can tolerate cheese made with natural rennet instead of Pfizer's GMO version</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/fake-milk-inferior-to-real-milk-experts-find">Fake milk inferior to real milk, experts find</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/fake-meat-sales-plummet-amid-falling-demand">Fake meat sales plummet amid falling demand</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/fake-meat-industry-continues-to-plunge">Fake meat industry continues to plunge</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/italy-becomes-first-country-to-ban-fake-food">Italy becomes first country to ban fake food</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/fakefood-another-safe-ingredient-may-pose-health-threat">#FakeFood: Another ‘safe’ ingredient may pose health threat</a></li></ul>

milk in test tubes.jpg

Technology

No FDA safety testing; GMO DNA

'Nutritional dark matter' in Bored Cow's synbio milk - 92 unknown compounds

This Wednesday, the senior editor of NPR, Uri Berliner, announced that he would be resigning from the organization for which he has worked for the past 25 years.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">My resignation letter to NPR CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/krmaher?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@krmaher</a> <a href="https://t.co/0hafVbcZAK">pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK</a>— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) <a href="https://twitter.com/uberliner/status/1780610524411048183?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The day before he tendered his resignation, Berliner had been suspended from NPR for five days without pay, due to the criticism of his colleagues regarding a piece he wrote for The Free Press, excoriating NPR for its progressive bias.&nbsp;&nbsp;The apology as a weaponInstead of resigning, Berliner could have apologized, recanted, and moved on — as many have done before him, especially when they cannot afford to lose their source of income. The more people take this route, the harder it is to be the outlier, especially as that outlier can be ostracized not only at work but also in his entire social circle, and perhaps even among family and relatives.In an environment where backing down and repenting one's “unwoke” ideas is increasingly idolized, groupthink becomes swiftly embedded and harder to resist.According to Dr. James Lindsay, embedding groupthink is part of the plan, and the plan was hatched not in the United States but in China, where its finer points were tested on the native population before being exported in order to destabilize and weaken China's main rival on the world stage.<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="681" height="383" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjQp-ZLu0oI" title="James Lindsay on Struggle Sessions: Have Chinese Political Warfare Tactics Influenced American DEI?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>Dr. Lindsay explains that the “crimes” of the DEI age are intentionally vague.<blockquote>They're training you to recognize your crimes on a predetermined set of terms … and their goal is to pressure you psychologically into figuring out in their terms how you harmed other people.</blockquote>He notes the extensive use of the word “harm," a typically vague term that is essentially impossible to prove or refute.When a person is accused by someone in the workplace or any other setting of having “harmed” someone, he continues, what happens is that the person's social milieu is “weaponized” against them. The person comes under tremendous psychological pressure to “just apologize” and restore the good name of the company, social group, family etc.<blockquote>This is psychological torture that's effected through manipulating the social environment around you to create psychological struggle so that you recognize crimes that are ill-defined in reality…It ends with you selling yourself out.</blockquote>&nbsp;DEI or DIE?Berliner is a prominent example of what is happening in workplaces in many places around the world, where those who dare to resist the prevailing worldview of the institution (even, or perhaps especially, if said institution is supposedly practicing even-handed, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">government-sponsored</a> journalism) are aggressively weeded out.According to a recent representative <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/the-edi-tax-how-equity-diversity-and-inclusion-is-hobbling-british-businesses/?mc_cid=1c18d61fed&amp;mc_eid=33114c8522&amp;utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">survey</a> conducted in the U.K., training in DEI (referred to in Britain as EDIC—Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Climate) is endemic in the British workplace. 65% of those surveyed said that they had been obliged to undergo some form of diversity training by an employer.Among those who underwent DEI training, the majority reported that they had felt compelled to hide their true opinions of the content. Over one in five said they had “said what they ought to say rather than what they thought.” Among Black and Asian respondents, this proportion rose to almost one in three. Apparently, their caution was well-founded, as 36 percent of those surveyed said that they had witnessed staff being penalized for challenging DEI training and 12 percent said they had seen staff fired.Almost half of those surveyed who went through training said that what they were forced to learn conflicted with their values, and almost a third of respondents said that they had left a job because their employer adopted “woke” ideology. Here, too, the proportion was higher among minority groups and also among those who identify as LGBT.&nbsp;The survey did not examine the reasons why those identifying as LGBT should object to woke ideas, but recent activity on the part of organizations such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LGB Alliance </a>against trans-promoting groups perhaps gives a clue to where they are coming from. While woke-trans is an ideology, many who call themselves L, G, or B do not allow their form of intimate attraction to define their entire identity and object to giving it so much prominence.The report's authors concluded that DEI is operating,<blockquote>… in effect, as a tax … Many ambitious employees and senior managers are leaving companies because of the excessive time they're expected to spend on these courses … Genuine diversity of thought is required for any business to thrive, but much EDIC training is having the opposite effect and embedding a new form of groupthink.</blockquote>According to Dr. Lindsay, this is exactly the plan being implemented by influential elements who have succeeded in permeating virtually all U.S. institutions, from the armed forces to the universities, corporations to smaller businesses, government local and federal — essentially, everywhere. Whether or not the United States will be next to adopt draconian thought-police laws like those now in place in Scotland remains to be seen.

Thumbs up.jpg

wokeness

New survey shows DEI destroying workforce caliber, creating 'groupthink'

Made in China: How Mao's minions weaponize DEI to subvert America

By Alex NewmanAs the global war on educational liberty heats up, Johns Hopkins School of Education is launching a new “<a href="https://education.jhu.edu/edpolicy/policy-research-initiatives/homeschool-hub/">Homeschool Hub</a>” that has experts and advocates deeply concerned. Many say it is part of the escalating effort to bring homeschooling families under government control.&nbsp;The new entity is funded by advocates of taxpayer funding for private and home education. The United Nations education agency in recent years has called on governments to fund “non-state education providers” with tax money in order to impose “equity” goals, national testing regimes, “non-discrimination” schemes, and more.&nbsp;Leaders in the homeschooling movement and Christian education told The Newman Report that this scheme by Johns Hopkins posed a “clear and present danger” to home educators. From the information that is publicly available so far, those concerns do not appear unreasonable.&nbsp;Virtually the entire leadership of prominent national and state homeschooling organizations have been opposed to government funding of home education. In fact, homeschooling families and advocacy organizations have been a constant thorn in the side of “school choice” advocates seeking to get home educators hooked on tax funds.&nbsp;The reason why leaders of the homeschooling movement have been largely united on the issue is simple. They believe control and regulation by government will be the inevitable result of taxpayer money — especially since this is what the historical record shows. Concerns about dependency and expanding the size and scope of government exist, too.However, by bringing a new player into homeschooling world — a powerful voice backed by academic credentials and big money seeking “school choice” funding — critics are concerned about possible nefarious intentions. The goal seems to be, in part, to sideline and displace existing voices in the movement. &nbsp; &nbsp;On its website, the new “Homeschool Hub” styles itself the “one-stop shop for current information on homeschooling data, regulations, and research across the United States.” Supposedly, in-depth data and information on all fifty states will be made available on the site, though it has not been fully fleshed out yet.&nbsp;“As homeschooling continues to expand and evolve, we need a better understanding of this growing and diversifying education sector,” argued Dr. Angela Watson, Homeschool Hub creator and assistant professor of education. “We need policy based on facts, not historical stereotypes. My hope is that the Homeschool Hub will help fill these needs.”There are already multiple established and credible services offering exactly that kind of information online. These include the <a href="https://hslda.org/">Home School Legal Defense Association</a> (HSLDA), a powerhouse with detailed insights on the legal environment serving hundreds of thousands of member families that opposes government funding and control of homeschooling.&nbsp;Another major resource on homeschooling data and research is the <a href="https://www.nheri.org/">National Home Education Research Institute</a> (NHERI). Widely recognized as the top repository for research on homeschooling in the world, NHERI and its leader, Dr. Brain Ray, have long been seen as the “one-stop shop” for the latest news, data, research, and insight into homeschooling. Dr. Ray also opposes government funding and control of homeschooling.&nbsp;On its website, the Hub suggests that it will seek to displace those sources to help inform future regulation and policy on home education. “Our goal is to remove barriers to rigorous research, increase transparency, and expand awareness to encourage evidence-driven policy,” the site says without explaining what barriers it believes may exist to research or “evidence-driven policy.”&nbsp;As the far-left Washington Post strategically targets existing homeschooling leaders and institutions, the new hub aims to become “the leader” in the field of homeschooling research. “As homeschooling grows, the Homeschool Hub will serve as the leader in promoting rigorous homeschool research and responding to the need for more transparency from this growing sector,” the site added.&nbsp;When the establishment speaks of “transparency,” that is generally a dog whistle for increasing surveillance, control, data-gathering, and intrusions on privacy.The new hub’s website, citing unnamed supposed “critics,” also cites the alleged risks that “unregulated” home education might feature, including “indoctrination” or even that parents with “conservative Christian values” may seek to “isolate” their children. &nbsp;On April 25, the new Homeschool Hub, hosted at Johns Hopkins “Institute for Education Policy” and its “School of Education,” will be holding a major event on home education. Headlined “Beyond the Traditional Classroom: The Rise of Homeschooling and Its Impact on Education in America,” the event will formally launch the new hub, according to the announcement.Numerous high-profile panelists with no real ties to the homeschooling movement will participate. These include various university officials and faculty members, an adviser to the scandal-plagued World Bank, an “education reporter” at the viciously anti-homeschooling Washington Post, and a senior U.S. Department of Education official.&nbsp;Johns Hopkins, notable for pioneering transgender mutilation of children and other barbarism, is open about the fact that it is partnering with <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/">EdChoice</a>, a well-known and well-funded group seeking what it calls “school choice.” The movement, launched by legendary economist Milton Friedman, is among the leading advocates of tax funding for home education and private schools. &nbsp;Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins is based in Baltimore, Maryland, the first state that sought to create a state-run homeschooling “council” to supposedly speak for homeschooling families and advise authorities. The controversial plan, which became a lightning rod of criticism among home educators, was widely seen as a ploy to bring in regulation and control.&nbsp;<img class="image_resized" style="width:332px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt="">With homeschooling becoming a major threat to the government’s “education” narrative and monopoly, it is no surprise to see the establishment work to crush it, co-opt it, or both. Tyrants across the United States and around the world are openly waging war on home education. As such, homeschool leaders and families are right to take the threat seriously.&nbsp;Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/17/tnr20240417/">FreedomProject Media</a>.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/">Alex Newman</a> is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.

Hopkins.jpg

Education

US News

University launching new 'Homeschool Hub;' experts and advocates deeply concerned

Johns Hopkins Homeschooling: Big Ed Seeking to Control Next Generation of Home Educators

<h2>Genetic engineering puts the natural world at risk</h2>Genetic engineering going from the lab, to the field, to the wildYou may have heard about the genetically modified mosquitos <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01070-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">released</a> in Florida to mitigate a Florida invasive species spreading zika and dengue, yet that is only one aspect of how synthetic biology (synbio) can affect nature. Jim Thomas of ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) <a href="https://www.etcgroup.org/content/video-lab-field-forest" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">spoke</a> about the potential dangers synbio may have on biodiversity and how we look after, conserve, share, and use the natural world.The video below, in which Thomas discusses the threats and new trends we'll have to start dealing with, gives us a window into a world that most of us may not be aware of, but should. His talk results from a discussion held by the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group.&nbsp;Thomas brought forward the following three issues associated with the technology and nature:1. Tools of genetic engineering are being put out into the field. Previously, genetically engineered organisms would have been created in the lab. Now they can release genetically engineered viruses or organisms into the field that can genetically engineer other organisms out in the field. Examples he called "crazy" include a “project by the US defense establishment called ‘insect allies to genetically engineer plants’.” He expressed “worry about it being a potential bioweapon but also a big shift in terms of doing the genetic engineering in an uncontrolled environment and changing nature.”2. &nbsp;Synbio is being used for conservation applications. Previously, biodiversity and conservation were about protecting the natural world. Now synbio is being used for such projects as eradicating invasive species by releasing synthetic organisms or genetically engineering corals to withstand climate change. “The idea that conservation could be done by making synthetic ecosystems is a really big shift” he said.. . . . [N]ow you've got these proposals of turning the natural world into a kind of synthetic version of itself and that could really upturn how we protect the wild and natural world.&nbsp;3. Machines and algorithms, artificial intelligence, and robots are taking over genetic engineering.&nbsp;<blockquote>Large automated genetic engineering foundries called biofoundries that use artificial intelligence to make tens of thousands of organisms at a time, not from a human's mind but to design them using artificial intelligence, . . . &nbsp;and one day to go out into the environment. And, it raises a real safety question because, if you have something go wrong, you potentially don't understnd why it went wrong. With artificial intelligence, it's a bit of a black box. . . . If you're asking artificial intelligence to redesign nature and release that into the environment then you've got a big problem in terms of trying to understand safety and if something goes wrong understanding what went wrong.&nbsp;</blockquote>The group of experts, Thomas said, all “felt that there needs to be a process for scanning the horizon and monitoring and assessing new developments in genetic engineering. We began to set out what that should be . . .”<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e7ES6ZYNTjA" title="From the lab to the field to the forest: synthetic biology" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>

FDA asks for 55 years to review its Pfizer-BioNTech data before releasing to public

Related Articles

21 'inclusion' flags but none for heterosexuals

Mother of COVID Hospital Protocol Victim: ‘He Drove There and Left in a Body Bag’

MSM blackout on massive rallies in Japan against WHO and super-warp-speed 100-day vaccines

Got milk? It might not be real

Latest Articles

'Nutritional dark matter' in Bored Cow's synbio milk - 92 unknown compounds

Made in China: How Mao's minions weaponize DEI to subvert America

Johns Hopkins Homeschooling: Big Ed Seeking to Control Next Generation of Home Educators

Danger ahead! Changing the natural world with genetic engineering and artificial intelligence