WHO claims bird flu strain infected human for first time, has ‘potential for high public health impact’

The WHO said a new strain of bird flu jumped to humans for the first time and killed a man in Mexico, but Mexican authorities say the man died due to long-term diseases, and experts like Dr. Peter McCullough are pointing to gain-of-function research.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said this week that a new strain of bird flu detected in humans for the first time has a “potential for high public health impact.”

According to officials, a 59-year-old man in Mexico with “multiple underlying conditions,” who died after battling a weeklong illness, tested positive for H5N2, a strain of bird flu that has never been seen in humans. That strain is not the same as the H5N1 bird flu that was recently reported in U.S. dairy farms.

READ: The US government’s ‘psychopathic’ record on bioweapons should give us pause about ‘bird flu’ claims

The man’s relatives said that he was bedridden for other reasons for three weeks before becoming infected, after which he suffered “fever, shortness of breath, diarrhea and nausea,” according to the Daily Mail.

While the WHO described the illness as a “confirmed fatal case of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N2) virus,” Mexico’s health ministry said the death was due to underlying conditions that led to septic shock, Reuters reported.

“The diseases were long-term and caused conditions that led to the failure of several organs,” the department said.

The WHO said it believes the virus poses a “low” risk to the general population, in part because in the past, “A(H5) viruses… have not acquired the ability to sustain transmission between humans.”

However, the global health body claimed that human infections with an influenza A virus or cases of human exposure to such a viral outbreak in animals make “necessary” “enhanced surveillance in potentially exposed human populations.”

READ: Rep. Chris Smith warns WHO pandemic treaty is the greatest threat to freedom in human history

It is unclear how the Mexican man would have contracted the bird flu, in part because he was reported to have had no connection to farms or poultry.

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most highly published cardiologists in history, has pointed to gain-of-function research as a likely explanation for a “jump” of bird flu from animals to humans, alluding to the fact that it has long historically only been detected in animals. He called for a shutdown of U.S. gain-of-function labs and warned that animal culling and bird flu vaccines would only create “more resistant strains.”

Gain-of-Function Bird Flu Proximal Origins of Current Strain from USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory and Spreading in Migratory Wild Birds

Lycett et al have published that bird flu has probably been around for >100 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Evaluate the… https://t.co/IpmChzksbm pic.twitter.com/sz98U6vyd4

— Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® (@P_McCulloughMD) June 6, 2024

Already, over four million chickens in Iowa are on the chopping block because of reported detection of bird flu among their flock, and it was recently announced that the U.S. government is close to an “agreement to fund a late-stage trial of Moderna’s mRNA bird flu vaccine.”

READ: Yes, COVID came from a lab. When will the mainstream media quit gaslighting us?

Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out in 2022 that Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci have spent years funding research to “develop a bird flu pathogen capable of infecting humans,” as Alexis Baden-Mayer showed in an article published last year. Some of this gain-of-function research has taken place in U.S. Department of Defense-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

Mercola noted that Christian Westbrook (the “Ice Age Farmer”) detailed in one video Gates’ funding of Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Wisconsin to identify mutations in various bird flu strains that could have pandemic potential. Fauci has also funded Kawaoka’s work since 1990.

“In one experiment, Kawaoka mixed bird flu virus with the Spanish flu virus, resulting in a highly lethal respiratory virus with human transmission capability. Kawaoka has also played around with mixtures of H5N1 and the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) virus, creating an airborne hybrid capable of completely evading the human immune system, effectively rendering humans defenseless against it,” explained Dr. Mercola.

READ: Doctor warns WHO pandemic treaty includes ‘gain of function’ data sharing

Remarkably, the scientist Dr. Michael Gregor, a vegan who once once testified on behalf of Oprah Winfrey in her “meat defamation” trial, has repeatedly claimed that chicken farms will trigger an apocalyptic virus that will threaten half of humankind. In 2006, he published a book called Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, in which he says that “leading public health authorities now predict as inevitable a pandemic of influenza, triggered by bird flu and expected to lead to millions of deaths around the globe.”

Accordingly, Westbrook “suspects a weaponized bird flu may be released to usher in The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution, which include the elimination of traditional farming and meat consumption in favor of patented, lab-created ‘foods,’” Dr. Mercola noted. In Westbrook’s words, this would be a “a controlled demolition of the protein supply.”

Related Topics:#BirdFlu #EmilyMangiaracina #InfluenzaAH5N2 #LifeSiteNews #WHO #WorldHealthOrganization

Up Next

Cut Corporate Income Taxes massively to increase growth, prosperity

Don't Miss

Simply throwing more money at schools will not increase student test scores

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Latvia Loss Reminds That World Juniors No Longer Canadian Walkover

Business / 14 hours ago

Trudeau government wants to give CBC more money

Business / 15 hours ago

Why living in Canada has become impossible

Digital ID

Age of online privacy coming to an end as Australia adopts digital ID

Published on December 28, 2024

Todayville

By Didi Rankovic

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Defends Controversial Online Age Verification Digital ID Methods

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner (to her critics – the country’s chief censor), has attempted to explain how Online Safety Amendment – Social Media Minimum Age Bill 2024 – will be enforced.

The bill mandates online age verification, and bans minors under 16 from using social platforms, in what is described as “the strictest crackdown” yet in the world – with many in the world, no doubt, looking at how things pan out in Australia before they make their own restrictive moves.

The “small” question that remains to be answered Down Under now is – how does the government propose to determine the age of a person using an online platform, before the government orders them to be banned?

Grant may be trying to sell one method as less invasive, less potentially harmful, and otherwise controversial than another – but they appear to be as bad as each other, only in different ways.

“There are really only three ways you can verify someone’s age online, and that’s through ID, through behavioral signals, or through biometrics,” she told NPR.

The “ID” route means that every internet user would have to provide government-issued documents to platforms, revealing their real-world identity to these platforms and anyone else they’re in business with (such as governments and data brokers) and ending online anonymity for everyone.

And that, in fact, is the only sure-fire way to determine someone’s age. The other two produce estimates. The biometrics Grant mentions refer to uploading selfies to companies like Yoti, who then guess a user’s age.

Better than the “ID” method – that is, if you believe it’s a good idea for minors, or anyone, to just hand over biometric data to third parties.

Then, there are “behavioral signals” – and it sounds positively bonkers that a government would entertain the idea of deploying such technology on/against its citizens.

Grant said she met with yet another third party in the US – “an age assurance provider” – this unnamed company doesn’t monitor and analyze your facial features, but hand gestures. For age verification.

Like so: “Say you do a peace sign then a fist to the camera. It follows your hand movements. And medical research has shown that based on your hand movement, it can identify your age.”

One way to look at all this is that tech is being developed to step up online surveillance, while a flurry of “think of the children” laws may be here to legitimize and “legalize” that tech’s use.

Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter today. Thank you.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Here’s How The Trump Admin Could Help Crush The Censorship Industry

Published on December 28, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Katelynn Richardson

The Trump administration has a major opportunity to deal a blow to the sprawling censorship industry, both inside the government and in the private sector.

Trump promised in a campaign video from Dec. 2022 to “shatter the left-wing censorship regime” by, among other proposals, signing an executive order banning agencies from collaborating with private platforms to suppress speech and ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate parties involved in censorship.

“If Trump takes the steps that he has indicated he will, one focus of anti-censorship efforts I anticipate is nonprofits like the Atlantic Council and Stanford Internet Observatory [SIO] that operate as middlemen between the government and the tech companies,” New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney Jenin Younes told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As President, Trump should ensure that the White House and his executive agencies do not work with these groups to censor ‘mis’ or ‘disinformation.’ In fact, all government efforts in the MDM [misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation] sphere should end, since this clearly results in suppressing First Amendment protected speech.”

Under the Biden administration, White House staff made explicit requests for platforms to restrict COVID-19 related speech. Other agencies participated in speech suppression, with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) flagging posts for removal and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) forwarding misinformation reports from local election officials to platforms, a practice they called “switchboarding.”

CISA likewise helped create of the Election Integrity Partnership in 2020, which the SIO played a key role in running, to monitor “misinformation” and report it to platforms during the 2020 election. A federal judge declined last week to dismiss a lawsuit against the SIO, along with several other groups, over their alleged targeting of conservative speech.

“Private entities cannot be permitted to partner with the government to censor Americans’ speech,” Nicholas R. Barry, America First Legal Senior Counsel, said in a statement.

Younes told the DCNF she would like to see “punishment for government actors who have violated Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

“At this time, such individuals manage to escape accountability for their actions because of doctrines like qualified immunity,” she said. “However, there can be exceptions to qualified immunity when government officials knowingly flout people’s civil rights, and those exceptions should be applied in the First Amendment context.”

Trump’s other suggestions included firing bureaucrats who have engaged in censorship, ensuring federal dollars do not go towards nonprofits and universities labeling domestic speech as misinformation and asking Congress to revise Section 230 to “get big online platforms out of censorship.”

The Biden administration has issued $267 million in grant funding for projects including the term “misinformation,” including $127 million specifically relating to COVID-19, according to a November Open The Books report. The DCNF reported in 2023 on several projects funded by the NSF to develop censorship tools, including a dashboard to forecast misinformation “trends” and another studying how misinformation influences online networks.

Great Discussion Between @AFergusonFTC And @nataliegwinters On The Censorship Regime And How The Trump Administration Can Combat It

Two Key Parts Of The Censorship Problem:

-Private companies colluding to censor speech they don't like. Advertiser Cartels being one of their… pic.twitter.com/i89sWWF9nQ

— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) November 30, 2024

‘Smash This Censorship Cartel’

Many Trump nominees have been vocal about their commitment to promoting free speech.

Andrew Ferguson, who Trump selected as the new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair, said on War Room in late November that Trump can cut off some censorship outright, ordering officials to stop communicating with platforms and ending government funding for entities participating in speech suppression. But private censorship would likely move to “new fronts,” he noted, making it important for the FTC to take “investigative steps.”

Ferguson said “advertiser cartels” could violate antitrust laws by agreeing to boycott certain shows, podcasts and platforms.

“If the government is going to get out of the business here in the states of cooperating and colluding with the platforms to suppress the speech that they don’t like, then it’s up to the FTC to make sure that that sort of cooperation and collusion doesn’t move into the private sector,” Ferguson said.

Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Brennan Carr likewise said in a NewsNation interview that one of his top priorities would be to “smash this censorship cartel.”

Other appointees took strong stances on censorship. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s choice for National Institute for Health (NIH) head, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration pushing back on COVID-19 lockdowns and responses. United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brought his own lawsuit against the Biden administration for alleged First Amendment violations.

Harmeet Dhillon, who is set to run the DOJ’s civil rights division, worked with her firm on a case challenging the California Secretary of State’s Office coordination with Twitter to suppress speech.

Continued Litigation

While the Supreme Court found in June that plaintiffs who challenged the Biden administration’s censorship efforts failed to link their accounts’ restrictions to the government’s communications with platforms, the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit is ongoing. In November, the district court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue more discovery to establish the government’s involvement.

“Depending on the approach the Administration takes, it is conceivable that cases like ours could resolve in a consent decree, in which the government acknowledges its wrongdoing and takes various specific steps to safeguard against future violations of Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights,” Younes told the DCNF regarding the case.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recently launched a new Center for Free Speech aimed at targeting censorship entities, pointing to the “new opportunity” free speech defenders will have as Trump takes office.

ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler told the DCNF the center is intended to create “substantial pushback on global censorship,” which he said has increased over the past decade by both private and government actors.

Potential targets include state level election laws, like the California laws targeting political satire that ADF already filed a lawsuit against on behalf of the Babylon Bee, along with debanking practices and other censorship by private actors.

“There is a lot of work to be done to dismantle this censorship industrial complex that’s been built up over many years,” Sechler told the DCNF.