Over 60 years have passed since the thalidomide disaster, when around 10,000 babies were born deformed due to a drug their mothers had taken during pregnancy. Thalidomide was <a href="https://usthalidomide.org/german-family-behind-thalidomide-apologises-to-victims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">promoted </a>as being “as harmless as a sugar cookie,” but almost half of all children exposed to the drug in the womb <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/thalidomide-babies-birth-defects-caused-by-a-harmless-pill-60-years-ago/a-59952155" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">died </a>shortly after birth. To this day, the majority of healthcare providers are still extremely cautious when it comes to pronouncing any drug safe for pregnant women. Quietly, however, researchers and others are working to change this, and while they claim to have the welfare of pregnant women in mind, their plans indicate that other interests are also at play.&nbsp;<ul style="list-style-type:disc;"><li>An article in a prestigious medical journal points the way toward research on pregnant and lactating women</li><li>Main obstacle: fear of legal liability</li><li>Pregnant women no longer considered “vulnerable” in official guidelines; including them in research to become the default position</li><li>Permitted level of risk raised above “minimal” and to be determined by “stakeholders" (which include Pharma)</li><li>Focus on providing researchers and Pharma with protection from liability in case of injury</li><li>Doctors &amp; other healthcare workers (broadly defined to includes doulas and others) to be barred from warning pregnant women against use of medications</li><li>Doctors to be co-opted to recruit patients as trial participants, using both inducements and implied threats</li><li>Large-scale "public awareness” campaign with the aim of creating a “cultural shift”</li></ul>&nbsp;Breaking tabooA recent article in <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817621?guestAccessKey=8b28a9e3-629c-4219-b51d-a2548613cb26&amp;utm_source=silverchair&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&amp;utm_content=olf&amp;utm_term=041024&amp;adv=" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JAMA </a>(the Journal of the American Medical Association), written by Margaret Foster Riley JD, is titled “Including Pregnant and Lactating Women in Clinical Research; Moving Beyond Legal Liability,” and the clue is in the title. In this article, Prof. Riley notes that research into use of drugs by pregnant and lactating women is being held back by fears of legal action if anything goes wrong, but that such fears are unfounded.<blockquote>... until now, there has never been a systematic examination of legal liability in the US for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research and whether this fear of liability is supported by evidence. A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine asserts that while fear of legal liability is pervasive, actual legal liability is not, and is often conflated with other concerns, such as reputational risk, increased costs, and trial complexity.</blockquote>Riley also expresses concern that the lack of research means that women many cease taking necessary drugs while pregnant or nursing, with adverse results; or that they take drugs regardless, without having safety data to inform them. While her concerns may be well-founded, it is noteworthy that she does not mention even in passing the risk that research itself would pose to women in vulnerable states.<blockquote>By excluding pregnant and lactating women from clinical studies due to perceived liability risks, these populations, as well as their fetuses and breastfeeding children, are harmed. In an ideal world, pregnant and lactating women would have the ability to make informed decisions that optimize their perinatal and postpartum health and the health of their children…</blockquote>Riley has been involved in crafting recommendations for Congress, which, several years ago, tasked the <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/27595/chapter/2#3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">National Academies</a> of Science, Engineering, and Medicine with examining the issue of research and associated liability. Their 83-page <a href="https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/PRGLAC_Implement_Plan_083120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">report</a> contains a wealth of information from which one may derive the direction in which research is going, not only in the United States, but also in Europe and beyond.Following is an assessment of the report with selected quotations.&nbsp;Fetuses and neonates no longer considered “vulnerable”Pregnant women have historically been considered “vulnerable” when it comes to research (due to concern for the fetus), as have other populations such as prisoners, who are vulnerable to being coerced into participation, and also children, who are unable to give informed consent. <a href="https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/PRGLAC_Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">No longer</a>. The report's recommendation that pregnant women no longer be classified as vulnerable has already been implemented, with the report’s authors claiming that:<blockquote>Not surprisingly, a consensus has arisen in recent years that the more ethical and responsible course would be to include pregnant and lactating women in clinical research.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Pregnant women to be included in trials absent “strong” evidence of riskThe report also recommends a paradigm shift in the attitude toward including pregnant and/or lactating women in clinical trials, making inclusion the default position:<blockquote>Instead of justifying inclusion of pregnant women or lactating women in clinical research, investigational new drug applications (INDs) for new drugs or biological products (including a proposed study for a new indication to an already approved drug or licensed biological product) should now include justification for excluding these groups…</blockquote>Pharmaceutical companies will only be granted a waiver from including these populations if:<blockquote>… available evidence strongly suggests that the drug or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe in pregnant women and/or lactating women…</blockquote>&nbsp;Permitted level of risk raised above “minimal”The official code of ethics governing the protection of those who participate in domestic research is called the <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/about-research-participation/protecting-research-volunteers/principal-regulations/index.html#:~:text=The%20Common%20Rule%20generally%20requires,in%20language%20they%20would%20understand." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Common Rule</a>. Clause 46:204 governing “Research involving pregnant women or fetuses” <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">includes</a> as one of the necessary conditions permitting this research:<blockquote>(d) If the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the pregnant woman, the prospect of a direct benefit both to the pregnant woman and the fetus, or no prospect of benefit for the woman nor the fetus when risk to the fetus is not greater than minimal&nbsp;and the purpose of the research is the development of important biomedical knowledge that cannot be obtained by any other means... [emphasis added]</blockquote>One of the report’s recommendations is to raise the permitted level of risk entailed in research, permitting not only research “of minimal risk” but also research that involves a “minor increase over minimal risk” (as is currently the rule for research on children).&nbsp;‘Stakeholders’ to decide what constitutes acceptable riskWho will define what constitutes a “minor increase” in risk? The report states:<blockquote>… experts and stakeholders should be convened to reach consensus on the definition of what constitutes a minor increase over minimal risk for both the pregnant woman and the fetus…</blockquote>Elsewhere, it defines stakeholders as “government, industry [i.e., Pharma], clinicians, and women":<blockquote>... stakeholders, including industry, could work on topics of mutual interest to further research on therapeutics used by pregnant women and lactating women. Examples include agreeing on the parameters of reproductive/toxicity studies, such as the weight of evidence for reproductive or teratogenic risk required, data standards, and developing a business case around the risk of studying drugs earlier in pregnant women…</blockquote>The report is light on what can be practically done to ensure that research itself does not pose dangers to women, fetuses, and neonates, merely mentioning the need for more funding to develop more preclinical models and methods, given that, “Current preclinical (animal) models have limitations for extrapolating the findings to humans.”<blockquote>Appropriate preclinical studies, such as reproductive toxicology studies using animal models, should be conducted for therapeutics still in development with the potential to be used by pregnant women and/or lactating women. Based on data from preclinical studies, decisions about whether to include pregnant women or lactating women in phase III clinical trials should be refocused; the assumption should be inclusion, with a decision on exclusion only if clearly justified by the preclinical data.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Protection for researchers — but what about mothers?It is illegal to bribe citizens to participate in medical research which involves a risk (as much, if not all, medical research does). Providing a substantial safety net for those inadvertently injured due to participation in a clinical trial is not considered an improper inducement. The report, however, does not mention providing enhanced compensation to reassure women that if anything goes wrong, they’re covered. Rather, it focuses on “providing researchers with protection against liability."<blockquote>Convene a panel ... to make recommendations for conducting research that substantially mitigates or avoids incurring liability (absent negligence or malfeasance). These recommendations may include ways to maximize the use of informed consent procedures ... without waiving research participants’ legal rights, while still providing researchers with protection against liability.&nbsp;</blockquote>The report also suggests using the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as a model for regulating compensation for mothers injured due to their involvement in a clinical study.&nbsp;Doctors who don’t play along may lose their licensesNext, the report turns its attention to the practicalities of recruiting women to clinical trials, and notes that doctors are in a unique position to influence their patients, since,<blockquote>… studies repeatedly show that healthcare providers remain a trusted source of information about health…</blockquote>Furthermore, “any hesitation on the part of the trusted healthcare provider about participation diminishes the chance” that women will join a trial, so various measures are proposed to ensure that healthcare providers actively promote participation in research:<blockquote>… continuing medical education (CME) modules that would be linked to maintenance of board certification or licensure. In addition to content about current knowledge of the therapeutics used by pregnant women and lactating women, these modules should explain how to access and how to communicate this information to a diverse group of potential participants, including information about balancing the risk of taking a medication with that of not treating an underlying condition... [emphasis added]</blockquote>&nbsp;Warning against drug use during pregnancy or lactation to be outlawedFor those doctors who succeed in recruiting patients to clinical trials, the report suggests a program of rewards:<blockquote>Explore incentives for healthcare providers to discuss clinical trials with their patients … Behavioral incentives, such as formal feedback that gives credit to healthcare providers for getting their patients involved in trials, or grading metrics from payers, should also be included in this discussion.</blockquote>However, not only doctors are to be included in the new drive to recruit pregnant and lactating women. The report mentions many other groups who are to be co-opted:<blockquote>… healthcare providers (including but not limited to clinicians, pharmacists, lactation consultants, dietitians, nursing and allied health professionals, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners); academic and industry researchers; medical, health, and pharmacy associations; teratology information specialists and genetic counselors; and pregnant women and lactating women and family members ... organizations representing women’s and family health interests, such as doula and social work organizations...</blockquote>If the report’s recommendations are adopted, all the above-mentioned groups will be barred from warning their patients or clients against using any medication during pregnancy or lactation unless there is clear evidence of risk:<blockquote>For example ... until more studies on medications used by lactating women are completed, the interim messaging to women and their healthcare providers may only reflect that data are lacking, and that they must balance risks and benefits&nbsp;of medication use with continuation of breastfeeding [emphasis added].</blockquote>How healthcare providers can calculate the risk-benefit ratio in the absence of data is not explained. Furthermore, the report stresses that data that becomes available in the future due to new research is to be shared with doctors, who will be responsible for presenting it in the form of “handouts written for a lay audience.” That is to say, the raw data will not be made available to the public.&nbsp;Aim: To create a ‘cultural shift’Parallel to its strategy vis-à-vis the healthcare profession, the report recommends a public awareness campaign to encourage pregnant and lactating women to participate in scientific research:<blockquote>Rec[ommendation]. 5: Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and healthcare providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women. For any cultural shift to occur, the associated behavioral change requires a targeted communications strategy. When communicating information relevant to treating pregnant women and lactating women, messages must be concise, consistent, tailored, and actionable for women and their healthcare providers … Highlight the importance of research on therapeutic products in pregnant women and lactating women, including the impact of not taking the medication during pregnancy and lactation…</blockquote>To provide maximal impact for public messaging, the report suggests that anecdotal evidence be used, even though in general, the scientific community dismisses this kind of evidence as either inferior or misleading and irrelevant:<blockquote>To assist in illustrating these issues, educational efforts need to include real-life stories about pregnant or lactating women’s experiences to illustrate absolute risk, relative risk, and the trade-off of risks and benefits. These stories may include the consequences of stopping treatment for ongoing conditions, failure to treat emerging conditions, and unintended incorrect dosing due to the physiological changes during pregnancy. Once developed, these messages should be pilot tested to ensure comprehension and acceptability prior to being rolled out to a wider audience.</blockquote>&nbsp;Tax breaks for Pharma companies that include pregnant and/or lactating women in clinical studiesWhile behavioral incentives are proposed to encourage doctors to recruit clinical trial participants, for another group of stakeholders, the pharmaceutical companies, the report suggests financial inducements, as JAMA’s article describes:<blockquote>... the report’s recommendations include a call for Congress to develop incentives, such as extended market exclusivity or tax breaks, to encourage the conduct of clinical studies with pregnant and lactating women…</blockquote>In fact, the government-appointed task force on research in this area is already collaborating with European Union partnerships between industrial and philanthropic interests, such as the ConcePTION initiative,<blockquote>… a public-private partnership between the European Union and the European pharmaceutical industry to develop the next generation of vaccines and medications for pregnant women and lactating women...</blockquote>The report also notes that,<blockquote>The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding MHRA in the UK to create repository of information for assessing drug exposure in pregnancy…</blockquote>&nbsp;Abortion laws and experimenting on pregnant womenProf. Riley notes that the recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion “could further discourage the conduct of clinical research with pregnant women.” Her concern may be well-founded, but the parallel between laws governing clinical trials and those governing abortion is an intriguing one.It is claimed, although reliable data are hard to come by, that most pregnant women (perhaps as many as 70 percent) and the majority of lactating women (over 50 percent) use medications during these periods. Riley’s main justification for broadening the permissibility of research rests on the assumption that “drug use is happening anyway, so we should at least find out if it’s safe (even if we risk a few women and babies along the way).” A similar argument is used by those in favor of “safe, legal, and rare” abortions.&nbsp;However, just because people are doing something “anyway” does not mean it should be condoned or encouraged by the government. Furthermore, doing so may have deleterious effects that legislators often fail to anticipate.&nbsp;Large, uncontrolled experiments?Riley also notes that:<blockquote>The absence of a sufficient evidence base means that almost all pregnant and lactating women with a condition for which a medical product might be appropriate are, in effect, participants in large, uncontrolled experiments that typically will not produce useful data.</blockquote>Unwitting and often unwilling participants in another “large, uncontrolled experiment” may have something to say on the topic…

preg woman.jpg

Medical

US News

Healthcare providers to be co-opted in recruiting trial participants; Pharma to be granted tax breaks

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

<h2>Move over book burning, hello de-platforming?</h2>Closed out of your Facebook or Instagram account? Maybe your website suddenly disappeared, or your YouTube channel was demonetized or deleted? Perhaps you lost access to thousands of hours of posts and videos you produced, and your years of work were gone in an instant? That's de-platforming; the modern version of book burning, a “punishment” for going against the mainstream narrative. And, the censorship doesn't stop with social media, it includes PayPal accounts and more.<h3>Getting up again</h3>How do individuals who went afoul of the globalists, who didn't keep quiet and let others do their thinking for them, respond when they find themselves de-platformed by social media companies and other services? Here's what London Real's Brian Rose, Americas Frontline Doctor founder Dr. Simone Gold, and independent researcher James Roguski did to pick themselves up and continue their work despite the heavy-handed censorship they experienced.Brian RoseWhen London Real YouTuber Brian Rose publicly began trying to understand COVID-19 and its countermeasures, he soon found his entire life seemingly deleted from the internet by the social media giants.&nbsp;Not only did he lose all his years of work, amounting to thousands of videos which he had uploaded to the internet. He also lost access to his Paypal account, and more, because in his search for the truth about the pandemic; his counter-narrative interviews with David Icke were too dangerous for the globalists to allow. &nbsp;In his below documentary, Rose&nbsp;recounts his experiences and how he ultimately started a channel of his own. He explains that he was wholly unprepared for what happened on May 3, 2020, even though he knew that many would want to stop the interview (@about 3:36):<blockquote>Over the past few weeks, our entire world has been transformed. Everything we took for granted has now been taken away and our freedoms have been replaced with fear. All those rights we fought centuries for have been handed over without a second thought.&nbsp;We all process fear in different ways. I cope by immersing myself in my work and today my job is to ask questions. One million people will be watching and they all want answers.&nbsp;Countless others are trying to stop this from happening. At any moment they can walk through that door or lock this broadcast. I'm scared but I don't know what else to do. I prepared my whole life for a moment like This. But nothing would prepare me for what happened next. . .</blockquote>&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">WATCH THE MOVIE THAT YouTube DOES NOT Want YOU TO SEE (and SHARE IT Far And Wide ) <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LondonReal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LondonReal</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeWillNotBeSilenced?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WeWillNotBeSilenced</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopCensorship?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StopCensorship</a> <a href="https://t.co/txcVpjPDWz">https://t.co/txcVpjPDWz</a>— Brian Rose, Founder &amp; Host of London Real (@LondonRealTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/LondonRealTV/status/1796285778517221575?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>&nbsp;Dr. Simone GoldDr. Simone Gold, founder of <a href="https://www.aflds.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">America's Frontline Doctors</a>, was one of the first doctors to understand that how she was being told to treat COVID patients wasn't normal. Very alarmed at what was taking place she, along with other doctors, held the “<a href="https://www.whitecoatsummit.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">White Coat Summit</a>” on July 27, 2020, as well as a press conference on the Supreme Court steps. As she tweeted below, the press conference went viral, garnering millions of views before Big Tech and Big Media took the video down.She concluded by explaining their purpose and the result:<blockquote>Our fight was to show America the propaganda vs the truth, and then we were censored.</blockquote>&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our press conference in front of the Supreme Court on July 27th, 2020 was a turning point in the fight against COVID Tyranny. After 20 million views in 8 hours, Big Tech colluded to wipe the video from online platforms. We knew in this moment that we would win the fight. <a href="https://t.co/9CP0Ogpnfp">pic.twitter.com/9CP0Ogpnfp</a>— Dr. Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) <a href="https://twitter.com/drsimonegold/status/1610416861723729921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Dr. Gold continues to <a href="https://aflds.org/about-us" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advance</a> the mission of America's Frontline Doctors, to protect medical freedom and civil liberties.'James RoguskiIndependent researcher James Roguski who, <a href="http://jamesroguski.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according</a> to his website, has been calling out lies and propaganda for decades, found years of work gone when the company that hosted most of his websites terminated his account for what they said were “terms of service” violations. It did not deter him from continuing his work, either.<blockquote>They deleted many of my websites, but they ignited my passion to burn even brighter. I now have most of my work on Substack.&nbsp;</blockquote>Roguski is interested in building a holistic alternative to the WHO and <a href="https://jamesroguski.substack.com/about" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recruits</a> others to join him.<blockquote>The old system is crumbling, and I intend to help speed its demise, but we must build its replacement quickly.If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help , then feel free to contact me directly anytime.</blockquote>&nbsp;The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives, or legal issues.&nbsp;Related articles:<ul><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/covid-sceptics-won-out-globalists-fear-an-increasingly-disbelieving-public" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">'COVID skeptics won out' — Globalists fear an increasingly disbelieving public</a></li><li><a href="https://frontline.news/post/colorado-governor-signs-off-on-bill-establishing-state-ministry-of-truth-students-atarget-of-new-law">Colorado governor signs off on bill establishing state 'ministry of truth'? Students a target of new law</a></li></ul>

account suspended.jpg

Censorship

Globalism

How three individuals got up again after being de-platformed

Who's afraid of Big Bad Tech? 

A British vigilante group known as the “Blade Runners” is receiving widespread support from British taxpayers as it continues to destroy climate surveillance cameras across London.<h2>The ULEZ mandate</h2>By order of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the city is peppered with ultra-low emission zones (ULEZs), areas accessible only to low-emission vehicles. Cars that do not meet the city’s environmental standards are charged £12.50 ($16) for entering the ULEZ. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras positioned around the zones read license plates and check them against the vehicles’ make and model in real time. If a vehicle does not meet the environmental threshold, a fine is levied against the car owner.&nbsp;The ULEZ climate mandate has drawn heavy&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/london-hundreds-protest-against-climate-mandates">protests</a> from residents, including&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/british-veteran-launches-hunger-strike-as-unrest-grows-over-climate-mandates">hunger strikes</a> and refusals to pay fines. Taxpayers have also taken to disabling the ANPR surveillance cameras which Transport for London (TfL), the city’s transportation department, said will be used both for climate and law enforcement.<h2>Taxpayers cheer the ‘Blade Runners’</h2>Since the climate restrictions were expanded last year, the Blade Runners have taken to disabling and destroying hundreds of cameras. Between April and September 2023, Metropolitan Police recorded 200 reports of cameras being stolen and 595 reports of cameras being vandalized.TfL began placing black boxes around ULEZ camera wirings to protect them from being cut, but taxpayers found other ways to disable the cameras — like removing them completely.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"> MUST SEE: Blade Runners topple THREE ULEZ cameras in a coordinated strike… The people are fighting back! <a href="https://t.co/Yvr2Xr7Lun">pic.twitter.com/Yvr2Xr7Lun</a>— David Morgan #StayFree (@david_r_morgan) <a href="https://twitter.com/david_r_morgan/status/1802726912050995623?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>In response, the city&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/london-taxpayers-attack-surveillance-vans-in-continued-revolt">deployed</a> mobile surveillance vans mounted with ANPR cameras across London in the hopes of evading attacks, but Blade Runners soon began targeting those as well. Some surveillance vans have been spotted covered in graffiti with their tires slashed, while others have been completely covered in tarp.Last month, 21 cameras were destroyed in the hours after Sadiq Khan was re-elected mayor of London, the&nbsp;Daily Mail&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13538797/Moment-Blade-Runner-uses-power-tool-cut-ULEZ-camera-traffic-light-latest-attack-Sadiq-Khans-hated-scheme.html">reported</a>. Last weekend, Blade Runners used power tools to topple a ULEZ camera and traffic lights to the delight of some fellow taxpayers. In a video that was posted to social media, passing cars can be heard honking in support.The video received over 37,000 likes. Comments on the post were largely supportive, with users writing that, “When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty,” and “Fair play to them, it's a complete scam that does nothing.”Blade Runner Matt Hardy told the&nbsp;Daily Mail&nbsp;that the Blade Runners are “people pissed off about the tyranny reigning over us and getting out and doing things about it – real votes, real boys here.”<h2>‘These cameras are not about the climate. They are about control’</h2>British actor and influencer Laurence Fox said this week he was just given back his electronic devices by police after being arrested earlier this year for cheering on the Blade Runners:<blockquote>These cameras are not about the climate. They are about control. They are the primary infrastructure for all sorts of things that ideologues like the midget dictator [Sadiq Khan] would like to impose upon us.I can now finally say the word ‘Bladerunners’ again. One of the ridiculous restrictions on free speech imposed by the police.It’s a dreadful shame to see so many of these cameras dying suddenly. I’m not at all thrilled about it. Just because I am smiling like a Cheshire Cat, it doesn’t mean that I am over the moon that these scameras continue to topple in high winds.&nbsp;Vive la résistance!</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">POLICE UPDATE Following 6 coppers bursting into my house earlier this year to arrest me for saying how pleased I was that the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ULEZ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ULEZ</a> scam was meeting such robust resistance, this morning the <a href="https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@metpoliceuk</a> were ordered by the magistrate to hand back all my devices, including my…— Laurence Fox (@LozzaFox) <a href="https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1803030521095622912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div> &nbsp;

ulez sign camera.jpg

Pushback_Resistance

Climate Change

‘Pissed off about the tyranny reigning over us’

British taxpayers cheer vigilante group destroying climate cams

Fisker is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the electric vehicle (EV) company announced Tuesday.<h2>‘Like other companies in the electric vehicle industry’</h2>“Fisker has made incredible progress since our founding, bringing the Ocean SUV to market twice as fast as expected in the auto industry and making good on our promises to deliver the most sustainable vehicle in the world,” a spokesperson <a href="https://assets.ctfassets.net/cghen8gr8e1n/6W19OiEBJDVIFVEmo4feHA/df902c5cb2b067251a300efb0b35f611/Fisker-Filing-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a>.The California-based company added it is not the only EV maker that has been struggling to stay in business.“We are proud of our achievements, and we have put thousands of Fisker Ocean SUVs in customers’ hands in both North American [sic] and Europe. But like other companies in the electric vehicle industry, we have faced various market and macroeconomic headwinds that have impacted our ability to operate efficiently. After evaluating all options for our business, we determined that proceeding with a sale of our assets under Chapter 11 is the most viable path forward for the company.”Fisker’s collapse is the latest indication that the EV industry is folding due to sinking demand. Other EV industry players are also cutting their losses as they jump ship.<h2>Hertz</h2>In March, Hertz CEO Stephen Scherr&nbsp;<a href="https://www.motorfinanceonline.com/news/hertz-ceo-resigns-amid-ev-investment-setback/#:~:text=Scherr's%20departure%20coincides%20with%20Hertz's,electric%20vehicle%20(EV)%20rentals">resigned</a> after his bet on EVs cost the car rental giant its biggest quarterly loss since 2020. Hertz had been praised by the Biden administration for its ambition to convert 25% of its fleet to EVs by the end of this year. In January, however, the company announced it would instead be selling its 20,000 EVs — including Teslas — at heavily discounted prices and replacing them with gas-powered cars.<h2>Mercedes-Benz</h2>Mercedes-Benz also recently had to give up its ambition to only sell electric cars by 2030. Instead, EVs are expected to make up only 50% of the German carmaker’s sales over the next decade.<h2>Apple</h2>In February, Apple abandoned its multi-billion dollar effort to create an electric car. Despite being a decade in the works and employing 2,000 people, Project Titan was axed due to falling consumer demand.<h2>Aston Martin</h2>A lack of consumer demand is also partly to blame for Aston Martin&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13138123/Aston-Martin-puts-brakes-new-electric-supercar-2026-bosses-say-drivers-want-engines-throaty-roar.html">placing</a> its battery-operated “supercar” on hold until 2026.“Demand, certainly at an Aston Martin price point, is not what we thought it was going to be two years ago,” said Aston Martin Executive Chairman Lawrence Stroll.&nbsp;<h2>Ford</h2>In December, Ford slashed production of its flagship EV at its assembly plant in Dearborn, Michigan by half. The automaker cut the monthly production quote for the all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck from 3,200 units to 1,600 units per month.<h2>Biden administration continues to force EV production</h2>Nevertheless, the Biden administration in March issued new climate mandates aimed at forcing more EV production. The new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain tight emissions standards that will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/epa-electric-vehicles-emissions-limits-climate-biden-e6d581324af51294048df24269b5d20a">require</a> 56% of new vehicle sales to be fully electric by 2032, with an additional 13% required to be hybrids.

car market decline.jpg

Biden administration continues to force EV production

Electric car company files bankruptcy as EV market folds

For the last two years, British authorities have been testing AI-powered emotion recognition cameras on travelers in train stations, according to recently disclosed documents.<h2>What can the cameras see?</h2>In each of eight train stations around the UK, five to seven cameras or sensors scan the passing crowds. Using AI software from Amazon, the cameras use object recognition algorithms to spot criminal activity, trespassing, weapons, wet floors, overcrowding, and overstuffed trash cans.&nbsp;They can also alert authorities when passengers engage in “unusual behavior,” such as shouting, running, smoking, or skateboarding.&nbsp;A combination of existing cameras and newly installed smart cameras are being used for the surveillance project. All are equipped with Amazon’s Rekognition surveillance system.<h2>Emotional recognition</h2>Through a combination of facial and behavioral analyses, the Rekognition software allows officials to also <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-ai-cameras-emotions-uk-train-passengers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">analyze visitors’ emotions</a>. Internal documents note that the cameras can detect whether a passenger is “happy, sad [or] angry.” They can also recognize passenger satisfaction, which “could be utilized to maximum advertising and retail revenue.”<h2>Anti-social behavior</h2>Authorities can also detect passengers who exhibit “anti-social behaviour,” which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/asb/asb/antisocial-behaviour/what-is-antisocial-behaviour/">according</a> to London’s Metropolitan Police Service means “behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to persons not of the same household as the person.”<h2>Social distancing, face masks, and demographics</h2>Other&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24757655-usecases_dpas_review_managed_stations?responsive=1&amp;title=1">use cases</a> for the surveillance cameras include detecting whether passengers are keeping to social distancing rules and wearing face masks. The cameras can also scan for demographics by identifying people’s age profiles and “socio-economic classification,” which the documents note can create “revenue opportunities for better targeted advertising and product placement.”<h2>‘Quite a concerning step’</h2>The documents were obtained by Big Brother Watch, a civil rights and government watchdog group, in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Network Rail, a body within the Department of Transportation which manages most of the country’s train network, has been overseeing the surveillance project.&nbsp;“The rollout and normalization of AI surveillance in these public spaces, without much consultation and conversation, is quite a concerning step,” Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-ai-cameras-emotions-uk-train-passengers/">told</a> Wired.As of now, the surveillance systems do not use facial recognition technology, which analyzes faces and matches them against facial images stored in certain databases.

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Healthcare providers to be co-opted in recruiting trial participants; Pharma to be granted tax breaks

Related Articles

FBI intimidated nurse who exposed hospital’s child mutilation practices, report reveals

A welcome change: new medical journal commits to values of Honest Medicine™

Claims of faked science are not fake news - researchers use AI, admit to falsifying data

Oxford study finds myocarditis, pericarditis only in vaccinated children

Latest Articles

Who's afraid of Big Bad Tech?

British taxpayers cheer vigilante group destroying climate cams

Electric car company files bankruptcy as EV market folds

UK tests emotion recognition cameras in train stations