Tag: Americas

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s “AI initiative” continues to be scrutinised and criticised

This time a trio of academics have offered their take on the controversial push into using Artificial Intelligence to advance “global health.”

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

What seems to have prompted this particular reaction, authored by researchers from the University of Vermont, Oxford University, and the University of Cape Town, was an announcement in early August, says author Dee Rankovic.

Reclaim The Net reports: The Gates Foundation at that time let the world know that it was in for a new scheme, worth $5 million, set to bankroll 48 projects whose task was to implement AI large language models (LLM) “in low-income and middle-income countries to improve the livelihood and well-being of communities globally.”

Every time – and it’s been many times now – that the Foundation chooses to present itself as the “benefactor” of “low or middle income countries” (i.e., undeveloped ones with little recourse to protect themselves from many things, including Bill Gates’ apparent “savior” complex) – it leaves observers critical of the organization and its founder’s “experiments” – and feeling somewhat, if not a lot, ill at ease.

But feelings are one thing and scientific facts hopefully often another, and the paper, the gist of which is available in an article, asks the question: is the Gates Foundation trying to “leapfrog global health inequalities?”

Well, as they would say in the American south – is a frog’s… anatomy watertight?

But in scientific language, the initiative announced on August 9 is highly likely yet another Gates’ project that, while making all the right promises – improving lives and well-being of people around the world, particularly the poor or verging on poverty (and therefore obviously extra vulnerable, particularly to questionable “altruism”) the results might be very different.

The study is not mincing too many words here. From a related article:

“There are at least three reasons to believe that the unfettered imposition of these tools into already fragile and fragmented healthcare delivery systems risks doing far more harm than good.”

The research then breaks it down into the very nature of “AI,” i.e. – machine learning. “If you feed biased or low-quality data into a machine that supposedly ‘learns,” out comes the reproduction thereof, perhaps even worse than before,” is how the authors put it.

So then – if we are to believe what many scholars and activists do – namely that “the world and its governing political economy is structurally racist,” what could be expected as the outcome of “AI” learning, from that particular huge dataset?

And then – another reason “to oppose the careless deployment of AI in global health,” according to this, “is the near complete absence of real, democratic regulation and control – an issue that is applicable to global health more broadly.”

Latest posts by Niamh Harris (see all)

House Speaker Mike Johnson has reportedly claimed that “there is insufficient evidence” to launch impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden

According to the Washington Post, during a closed-door meeting with House GOP moderates, Johnson said there was insufficent evidence “at present to begin formal impeachment proceedings”.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

InfoWars reports: Johnson’s newfound sentiment was reiterated by Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who claimed, “We’ll just go where the evidence goes and we’re not there yet.”

“Most of us are saying, look, we can’t even get a single Democratic vote on this right now. I think the voters will reject what they are seeing when it comes to Biden [policies] — but high crimes and misdemeanors? I don’t think we’ve seen that or enough data to really make a good case and I feel like [Johnson] really agreed with us on that,” Bacon added.

This represents a major about-face from Johnson’s posture in July, when he claimed that evidence “proves” the Biden family is “hopelessly corrupt.”

“The evidence now shows — it proves — that the First Family is hopelessly corrupt. They’ve been involved in extortion, bribery schemes and tax fraud and incredible abuses of power,” Johnson said.

“We have now $17 million and counting of these amounts of money that have been uncovered that were put into these ghost companies that the Biden family put together, many of which when Joe Biden was vice president to hide the sources of this funding. And it involves China and Ukraine, adversaries around the world. It’s a very serious and alarming problem.”

Political commentator Tim Poole speculated that Johnson’s 180-degree pivot was part of a larger political calculus aimed at defeating Biden in the 2024 election.

“Maybe it’s just a 4D chess move. They know Biden is the weakest candidate here…I think they know what they’re doing here,” Poole said Friday.

Others like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) blamed Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for spearheading the removal of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker, who she claimed was committed to impeaching Biden.

“Not long ago we had a Speaker that believed in impeachment so much that he launched an inquiry without a floor vote, but you were told he was bad,” Greene wrote Saturday on X.

“After 8 R’s and all D’s ousted him, we found checks to Joe Biden and evidence of a massive money laundering scheme and now the new guy you are told is way better doesn’t want to impeach. Such progress,” she added.

Latest posts by Niamh Harris (see all)

A new report has revealed that CNN had foreknowledge of the Hamas attack on Israel and had an embedded reporter with Hamas when the group launched its brutal attack on Israel on October 7.

Photojournalist Hassan Eslaiah, who has also worked for the Associated Press, posted several images and videos on Twitter/X that were taken during the surprise attack. One of the posts includes a clip showing Hamas fighters ransacking a burning Israeli tank.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

“All the Israeli soldiers who were in the tank were kidnapped,” the CNN photojournalist told his followers.

CNN’s Eslaiah also had prior knowledge of the attacks but chose not to raise the alarm.

CNN has responded to the bombshell revelations by attempting to cover its tracks, issuing a statement declaring the network has “suspended all ties” with Eslaiah.

His firing comes in the wake of a shocking report from media watchdog Honest Reporting.

The report named Eslaia, along with Yousef Masoud, Ali Mahmud, and Hatem Ali, as the four photojournalists who joined Hamas during the October 7 assault.

TRENDING: Hamas Leader Blows Whistle: We Are “CIA Psy-Op” To Advance Globalist Agenda

The work by the four reporters, that was obtained during the attacks, was used in reporting by corporate media outlets, including CNN and the Associated Press.

Honest Reporting noted that Eslaiah deleted several posts from X that he posted on October 7.

In those posts, he wrote about being “Live from inside the Gaza Strip settlements.”

In response, a CNN spokesperson said the network did not “doubt the journalistic accuracy of the work he has done for us, we have decided to suspend all ties with him.”

TRENDING: WEF Insiders Jump Ship As Prosecutors Prepare Nuremberg 2.0 Trials

In a statement to The Washington Times, an Associated Press (AP) spokesperson said:

“The Associated Press had no knowledge of the October 7 attacks before they happened.

“The role of The Associated Press is to gather information on breaking news events around the world, wherever they happen, even when those events are horrific and cause mass casualties.”

Two photos published by Reuters on October 7 were taken close to the Gaza border as the Hamas invasion began.

Honest Reporting notes that photographers Mohammed Fayq Abu Mostafa and Yasser Qudih “happened to be at the border just in time for Hamas” infiltration.

“Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets?” Honest Reporting asked.

“Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping, and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.”

In his video, as he stands in front of a terrorist attack, Eslaiah is not wearing a press vest or a helmet and appears to be part of the Hamas group.

In 2021, it was widely reported that the Associated Press used the same office space as Hamas in Gaza.

Eslaiah was previously pictured in an embrace with Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar in an undated photo.

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People’s Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: baxter@thepeoplesvoice.tv

Latest posts by Baxter Dmitry (see all)

Radical Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib is funded by at least “six major terror groups”, according to a bombshell new investigation.

Canary Mission, an organization that monitors extremism across the United States, wrote in its October report that Rep. Tlaib is backed by “six terror-linked activists who all served as cohosts for fundraisers for her 2018 congressional campaign.”

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

The watchdog identified three new Tlaib fundraisers who are connected to major terrorist organizations, just a day after Tlaib was censured by the House for promoting anti-Semitism.

NN reports: The report from the Canary Mission has garnered widespread attention on social media.

According to the report, those fundraisers included:

• A man who “met with a Hamas co-founder while in a maximum-security Israeli jail.”
• A man who allied “with multiple terror groups, including Hamas.”
• A man who was convicted “by an Israeli military court for providing material support to Hamas.”

Mwafaq Jbara was identified as one of the Tlaib’s fundraisers.

Jbara previously “met with a Hamas co-founder while [both were] in a maximum-security Israeli jail.”

It was also reported that Jbara, who raised funds for Tlaib in 2018, “called for the death of Jews and praised the terrorist who killed U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force.”

Further, the group reported that Jbara “has shared a huge amount of pro-terror material on Facebook and is a well-known anti-Israel organizer in Chicago.”

Canary Mission also uncovered evidence that Sheikh Muhammad Qatanani, a second fundraiser of Tlaib, faced deportation from America in the past.

Qatanani failed to disclose his conviction in an Israeli military court for providing support to Hamas.

The court also found that Qatanani tried to hide “his membership in the terror organization.”

The group also added that “Qatanani’s deceased brother-in-law, Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, was reportedly a Hamas military leader.”

Hanoud was listed as a cohost for a 2018 Tlaib fundraising event in Clifton, New Jersey.

Huwaida Arraf was another Tlaib fundraiser who was identified by the watchdog organization.

Arraf was revealed to be a prominent anti-Israel activist who allegedly “has allied with multiple terror groups, including Hamas.”

In 2018, Arraf co-hosted one of Tlaib’s fundraising events in Detroit.

On Tuesday, Tlaib became the fourth member of the House of Representatives to be censured by the chamber since 2010.

In a bipartisan vote of 234-188 with 212 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting in favor, the House formally rebuked Tlaib for “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

The World Economic Forum has published a new study claiming that the sudden spike in fatal heart attacks and strokes are caused by ‘man-made climate change.’

The WEF-funded UPenn, which is also financed by Bill Gates, published the results of its study in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA).

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

The WEF team of scientists, led by Sameed Ahmed M. Khatana, concluded that “climate change is causing an increase in extreme heat.”

They claim that this “increase in extreme heat” is triggering a “deadly wave” in “heat–associated cardiovascular deaths in the United States.”

NN reports: According to Khatana and his Bill Gates-funded team, cardiovascular deaths linked to extreme heat could triple to almost 5,500 extra deaths per year by 2050.

The scientists insist that taking action now to tackle the so-called “climate crisis” could help to lower the numbers of deaths caused by soaring heart attacks and strokes.

However, they admit that heat-related cardiovascular deaths are still likely to more than double to 4,300 extra deaths per year even if the United States stays on its current planned path of green agenda emissions reductions.

The researchers warn that even more must be done to accelerate the WEF’s “Net Zero” targets to slow down the alleged heat-related deaths.

Khatana, a cardiologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, argues that those who are “most vulnerable,” such as black Americans, are most at risk from the cardiovascular death wave.

“The public health impact of climate change is falling on individuals who live on the margins of our society,” says Khatana.

“Any policy action or mitigation efforts really need to be tailored towards individuals who are most vulnerable.”

The prediction originates with Khatana’s group at the University of Pennsylvania.

The team previously modeled the relationship between current deaths from heart attack and stroke and the rising number of “extreme heat days” (defined as having a heat index—a measure of apparent temperature that is a product of ambient temperature and relative humidity—at or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit).

Using data from the 3,108 counties in the contiguous U.S. between 2008 and 2017, they found rising rates of cardiovascular deaths along with a trend of increasing numbers of extreme heat days.

By 2019, they said, there were 54 extreme heat days per year, and 1,651 people died annually as a result.

However, despite the claims linking the deaths to “climate change,” data for heart attacks and stroke deaths have only been recorded in recent years.

Temperate data has been recorded for much longer and records show that recent summer heats are nothing out of the ordinary.

The data for average temperatures has only been recorded for roughly 150 years and it still shows past summers have been far hotter.

The summer heatwave of 1936 for example, was in an entirely different league to this year’s temperatures, which were fairly normal.

Before the 19th century, there were no temperature records for North America at all, making it impossible to compare “extreme heat” data.

As The People’s Voice previously reported, cardiovascular deaths have been soaring globally since 2021.

The spike has led some to suggest that Covid has been responsible for the spike.

However, a recent major new autopsy-based study concluded that COVID-19 is not responsible for the “explosion” in heart-related deaths since the pandemic.

Renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough commented on the study by arguing that the results “should be the nail in the coffin in ruling out COVID-19 illness as a cause of fatal myocarditis.”

“Despite the virus being found in heart tissue, it was not causing significant inflammation,” he said.

This means that the “explosion of fatal myocarditis” as inferred from the reports and autopsies of unexplained cardiac arrest, “must have another explanation than SARS-CoV-2 infection,” he added.

McCullough argues that the mRNA shots that were rolled out to the public during the pandemic are responsible for the soaring heart attack deaths.

“The only new proven cause of heart damage in human populations is COVID-19 vaccination,” McCullough asserts.

“Vaccines used in America (Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen, Novavax) have been demonstrated to cause myocarditis as published in the peer-reviewed literature.”

Autopsies of vaccinated patients have found clear evidence of strong expression of spike protein in heart muscle.

This evidence, according to Dr. Michael Palmer and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, “correlates with significant inflammation and tissue destruction.”

The World Economic Forum has ordered government’s to begin putting cigarette-style warning labels on all meat products to discourage the public from consuming meat.

The new labels will read: “Warning: Eating meat contributes to climate change.”

BYPASS THE CENSORS

Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

The WEF-funded scientists, who falsely claim meat consumption is detrimental to health and the environment, began pushing for the labels after conducting a study at the UK’s Durham University.

The scientists took a group of 1,000 meat-eating adults and put them into four groups. Depending on what group a participant was in, they were shown photos of hot meals assigned climate, health, or pandemic warning labels or no warning label at all.

“All the labels deterred meat consumption, with 7-10 percent of the participants choosing a non-meat meal.” However, when participants were asked how anxiety-inducing and believable they found each of the labels, they reported the climate change warning as the most believable.

Thefederalist.com reports: This prompted the scientists to advocate for government-mandated climate change warning labels on meat. “Reaching net zero is a priority for the nation and the planet,” said study author Jack Hughes. “As warning labels have already been shown to reduce smoking as well as drinking of sugary drinks and alcohol, using a warning label on meat-containing products could help us achieve this if introduced as national policy.”

Climate activists are ramping up their war on meat every day. Efforts to stigmatize meat-based diets as socially unacceptable and even unhealthy have become their latest strategy to curb consumption. Former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres suggested in 2018 that society should ostracize meat carnivore eaters in the same way it did smokers. “How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated,” she said. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”

Some climate activists are embracing far more dystopian means to eliminate the more than two million-year tradition of meat as a staple in the human diet. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao proposed the idea of scientists genetically modifying humans to be allergic to meat. Liao also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.

Few know that the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a globalist Michael Bloomberg-run climate organization made up of nearly 100 cities across the globe, including 14 American cities, has a goal of completely eradicating meat and dairy consumption by 2030. 

In June, the U.S. Agriculture Department approved the consumption and sale of lab-grown meat in restaurants and, eventually, supermarkets. Ironically, “Analysis finds the carbon footprint of cultivated meat is likely to be higher than beef if current production methods are scaled up because they are still highly energy-intensive,” reports New Scientist.  

Meat Is Good For You

By virtually every standard, protein from meat, which has been the basis of the human diet since the inception of the species, is far superior to plant protein. Dr. Benjamin Bikman, author of the 2020 book Why We Get Sick: The Hidden Epidemic at the Root of Most Chronic Disease–and How to Fight It, explained why on “The Ultimate Health Podcast.”

“By every metric, every single animal protein is superior to every single plant protein,” Bikman said. “A person can eat a modest amount of animal protein and know that they are literally getting every single amino acid they could possibly need in a good ratio. If it’s plant protein, well, then you kind of have to guess, and you hope you’re getting it all.”

Plant proteins, Bikman added, “are enriched with things called ‘anti-nutrients,’” which are “molecules that will inhibit the intestines’ ability to digest the protein.”

“So that’s kind of adding insult to injury,” Bikman explained, “because when someone’s trying to get all their protein from plant proteins, not only are they getting an inferior source of amino acids and an inferior profile of amino acids, they’re not even digesting the amino acids in the proteins they think they’re getting.”

While academic researchers on far-left campuses from Durham to Harvard lead the assault on meat, the evidence to suggest meat-based diets are detrimental to human health fails to stand close scrutiny. In her book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, nutrition journalist Nina Teicholz spent almost a decade researching the science behind health authorities’ recommendations for a low-fat, meat-restricted diet. Her findings were breathtaking.

“Almost nothing that we commonly believe today about fats generally and saturated fat in particular appears, upon close examination, to be accurate,” she wrote.

Teicholz outlined how the data to support a low-fat diet was manipulated with selective findings to back pre-determined conclusions. The landmark Seven Countries study, for example, the legacy project of American Physiologist Ancel Keys to support a low-fat diet, omitted data from 15 countries that would have contradicted any correlation between dietary fat and heart disease.

Further, a paper published by the National Library of Medicine in April debunked the conventional narrative that red meat consumption is responsible for the proliferation of non-communicable diseases. Researchers assessed mean meat intake in different regions of the world and found that while some academics claim red meat is hazardous to human health, only slight increases in disease risk were reported in areas where meat consumption was well above the global average. Even then, “there is little to no effect on absolute risk,” they wrote, “and the certainty of evidence remains low to very low based on the best available summary evidence.”

“Regrettably, the scientific discussion on the potential associations between meat and noncommunicable diseases is often no longer a transparent assessment of the evidence, but is affected by agendas, including vested interests and ideologies,” they concluded.

Meat Is Good For The Planet

If there’s any confusion about environmentalists being on the side of big food, a quick glance at this year’s list of “100 Best Corporate Citizens” based on Environmental, Social, and Governance Standards (ESG) will remove any doubt.

The list ranks 1,000 of the largest U.S. public companies every year on their compliance and transparency efforts to “align with the Sustainable Development Goals and rebuild an equitable economy post-pandemic.” The nation’s largest food corporations routinely rank highly on the list despite their use of endocrine-disrupting pesticides that are terrible for the environment.

This year’s list celebrated seven major food processors, including PepsiCo, which was 6th, Hershey at 10, Mondelez at 45, Kellogg at 40, and General Mills at 49. Kraft Heinz was listed at 61, and Coca-Cola at 79.

Sustainably raised livestock, meanwhile, are actually good for the planet. In his book, Food Fix: How to Save Our Health, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Planet — One Bite at a Time, Dr. Mark Hyman writes about the important benefits of regenerative farm practices on both our health and planet.

“Regenerative grass-fed meat can restore ecosystems, improving soils while sucking carbon from the atmosphere and increasing water storage in soils,” Hyman wrote, urging readers to “choose regeneratively raised animal products whenever possible.”

“They are better for you and better for the animals and help draw down carbon and reverse climate change,” Hyman added.

Despite the fear-mongering over global livestock emissions, a trio of Spanish researchers published a study in April finding emissions from wildlife comparable to domesticated animals raised in natural grazing systems. In other words, contrary to climate alarmists’ warnings that livestock capital will pollute the planet into an environmental apocalypse, the elimination of animal emissions requires the extinction of natural species.

Warning Labels Belong On Biscuits, Not Brisket

If the government steps in to slap warning labels on anything at grocery stores to manipulate the American diet, it should be ultra-processed foods. Often saturated in seed oils and several different kinds of added sugars while deprived of fiber and healthy fat, these toxic ultra-processed products make up nearly three-fourths of the U.S. food supply. It’s no wonder 6 in 10 Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease while 4 in 10 suffer from at least two.

For years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed food manufacturers to market chemically processed grains drenched in sugary syrups as cereal with a “healthy” label slapped on the box. If you want to know why the most sugary cereals are lined up at waist height in the grocery store, take a look next time at who walks next to parents down the “breakfast” aisle. Hint: it’s exactly who cereal companies want to beg their parents to buy the Fruit Loops. 

Researchers from Spain, Brazil, and the United States published a paper in the British Medical Journal last month examining 281 studies across 36 countries and found the prevalence of food addiction “similar to the levels of addiction seen for other legal substances in adults.” 

While not officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic guide on mental disorders, commonly known as the DSM-5, researchers analyzed food addiction using the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS). The YFAS assesses all 11 criteria for substance use disorders outlined in the DSM-5 to examine compulsive food consumption as a legitimate substance disorder. Researchers concluded in their October paper that levels of food addiction rival rates of addiction to alcohol and cigarettes. Ultra-processed products high in refined carbohydrates and added fats were the most likely to be found addictive, stimulating a dopamine response “seen with addictive substances such as nicotine and alcohol.”

But forget cigarettes. Let’s talk about cocaine. A 2013 paper from French researchers found sugar can stimulate a reward response in the brain stronger than that of even cocaine. Believe artificial sugar sweeteners are the antidote? Think again. The 2013 paper identified “sweetness,” not necessarily just “sugar,” as the culprit stimulant. Their findings corroborated similar conclusions in another landmark study on sugar and its addictive value by French researchers in 2007.

Beyond addiction, ultra-processed foods are dangerous. A February study from London’s Imperial School of Public Health linked consumption of ultra-processed products to early mortality. In other words, those Pillsbury Biscuits might not kill you tomorrow, but they may take over 30 years. If an ultra-processed diet doesn’t kill you early, it’s certain to make you sick. Another 2021 paper from Brazil found higher consumption of ultra-processed food and drinks was “positively associated with obesity and associated with the development of all [noncommunicable chronic diseases], mainly hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.”

Ultimately, the scientists pushing for meat warning labels are anti-science. Meat is healthy and good for the planet. If labels are to be put on anything, it should be ultra-processed foods. Since these scientists are not interested in warning the public about the foods that are causing obesity and chronic disease, that suggests they are not interested in genuine wellness and are instead pushing an agenda and a dangerous, unhealthy one at that.