<ul style="list-style-type:circle;"><li>Two new studies* suggest “Omicron-specific” booster shots are less effective against Omicron than the original “vaccines”,</li><li>Mainstream <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/1131449380/two-new-research-papers-cast-doubt-on-the-new-covid-booster" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">media</a> are starting to acknowlege this without drawing the logical conclusion that the entire “vaccination” program should be rethought,</li><li>Instead, some suggest waiting longer between shots in order to overcome one issue that is seen as problematic (immune complexes), even though there is no evidence that waiting will help,</li><li>Immune imprinting (i.e. original antigenic sin) is increasingly being recognized as a problem, years after skeptical scientists first raised the issue,</li><li>CDC is still promoting bivalent boosters, and several top-line universities are still requiring their students take them.</li></ul>&nbsp;Mere weeks after bivalent vaccines based on both Omicron and the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 were introduced, two new studies* have been published suggesting that the original pure Wuhan shot does a better job all-round – and that includes combating Omicron. According to one preprint study published in bioRxiv,<blockquote>Monovalent COVID vaccines produced similar, and in some cases better, neutralizing activity than the new bivalent shots against multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains including BA.4/5.</blockquote>For those who have been following the story of the combined Wuhan-Omicron booster shot, from the eight mice it was tested on all the way through to the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contracting COVID within a month of getting her own bivalent shot, this was not surprising news, even though on the face of it, it doesn't make all that much sense that a “vaccine” designed to combat Omicron as well as the original Wuhan strain is actually worse at doing so than a pure “Wuhan” shot.What was surprising was finding this item on the daily bulletin of MedPage Today, which is a classic mainstream publication. MedPage linked to one of the studies and left it at that. There was no mention whatsoever of the fact that just a day before, on October 25, one of MedPage's own articles was headlined: “<a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/101421" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biden Urges All Americans to Get Their COVID Booster</a>" (referring to the bivalent booster, as the pure Wuhan booster has been outlawed, having been superseded by the bivalent version).Biden's urging occurred during a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kZZqfcUlm8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">speech</a> he made at a White House event while flanked by members of his COVID taskforce, and just prior to receiving his own bivalent shot. He made no mention whatsoever of the fact that just three days previously, it had been announced that CDC head Dr. Rochelle Walensky had tested positive for COVID after getting her bivalent shot just a month earlier.Instead, Biden stressed the vital importance of getting a Wuhan-Omicron booster because “if you get it, you're protected. And if you don't, you're putting yourself and other people at unnecessary risk” (italics added), even though it is now known that the vaccines were never tested <a href="https://americasfrontlinenews.com/post/pfizer-exec-admits-no-data-on-preventing-transmission-before-vaccine-went-to-market" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">against transmission</a> and multiple real-world studies have confirmed that it provides no protection, or even negative protection against contagion (that is to say, a person is more likely to contract COVID after having been jabbed).MedPageToday's comments section is restricted to healthcare professionals and this section has, of late, become increasingly restive on the topic of COVID, with robust debate on the science. As of this writing, there were no comments on the daily bulletin featuring the brief note on the latest study of the bivalent shots, yet one cannot help wondering what kind of editorial response prompted, just a few hours later, the appearance of a new article on the site titled, “<a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/101432" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Updated COVID Boosters Could Have Been Better.</a>”Although the piece is authored by a specialist in infectious diseases and a professor of immunology, it is still curious to see two individuals seemingly condemning decisions taken by the government, the CDC and the FDA. They point out that European agencies as well as the WHO were opposed to the promotion of a bivalent shot based on the BA.4/5 Omicron variants, and then suggest a few reasons why the shots have failed to deliver on their promise.One reason is the timing – people should be waiting longer between shots or infection, they suggest. The reasoning they provide seems somewhat worrying in its implications, given what we know about how mRNA shots work (which has been partially admitted in official circles after initially being denied). They write:<blockquote>One reason is the presence of pre-existing antibodies in the blood, which can form complexes with the spike proteins produced by the vaccine and thus impair how the immune system responds to the vaccine.</blockquote>Apparently, waiting longer after a previous shot will eliminate, or at least minimize this issue – as evidenced by the CDCs previous recommendations to postpone a booster by at least 3 months following a suspected COVID-19 infection.However, we really have no idea whether this is the case, and there are plenty of indications that this assumption may be unfounded. For how long after the shots are our bodies prompted to keep churning out spike antigens? Originally, we were assured that the spike-churning mechanism was extremely short-lived. The CDC stated in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210305022237/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">March 2021</a>:<blockquote>After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them.</blockquote>By<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220716011916/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> July of 2022</a> the CDC had changed its tune and its website, instead writing:&nbsp;<blockquote><ul><li>Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.</li><li>Scientists estimate that the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks.</li></ul></blockquote>On the current site (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/how-they-work.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fvaccines%2Fdifferent-vaccines%2Fmrna.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>), all that's gone. No more reassurances. Either they don't know the real answer to the question, or they do and they know people won't like it. &nbsp;Either way, it could go a long way to explaining why people are “suddenly dying” months after their shots of an inexplicable disease called SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome).SADS is one side of the coin. The flip-side is something called “original antigenic sin” (also known as immunological imprinting). It was cited by both studies on the puzzling inefficacy of the bivalent shots as something of interest that warrants investigation. Scientists skeptical of the COVID shots have been warning about original antigenic sin virtually since the shots were rolled out, to no effect.&nbsp;In a nutshell, immunological imprinting means that the shots prime the body to respond to the antigen presented to it. In the case of the Wuhan-variant shot the body is taught to respond to the form of SARS-CoV-2 containing the Wuhan-variant specific spike protein, the spike protein of the original version of the virus. When a different type of coronavirus-2019 comes along with a mutated spike protein, the body is not as quick, or entirely fails, to recognize the intruder as a threat. In other words, the body becomes overly specialized at fighting a single, specific enemy, forgoing a generalized defense plan to fight off other invaders, leaving the host vulnerable to variants or other illness.This goes a long way to explaining why “vaccinated” people succumb to Omicron, whose spike protein is substantially different from the original Wuhan version. However, the degree to which the immune system can be re-educated to recognize subsequent mutations and learn to adapt to them as well, is an open question. The results of these new studies suggest that the answer is, “only to a very limited degree," and this is borne out by what the Barouch trial's authors themselves note:<blockquote>Our data demonstrate that both monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters markedly increased antibody responses but did not substantially augment T cell responses.</blockquote>That is to say, the memory T cells responsible for “remembering” prior infection and mobilizing cell-mediated immune defenses following re-infection did NOT increase significantly following boosting with the bivalent shots (or the original version of the booster).By contrast, immunity or resilience conferred by actual COVID infection is far broader, given that the antigen is not limited to the specific form of spike protein but rather is the entire virus containing all kinds of pointers to the immune system signifying, “Here's a threat – deal with it.” Even when confronted with a new type of spike protein, there are multiple other pointers that remain unchanged from the basic template.If immunological imprinting is now being recognized in official circles as a real issue, this has broad implications for the future of COVID shots and for the best way to tackle the “pandemic.” It could very well mean that going forward, we will see much more stress placed on anti-virals (such as Paxlovid) and far less on “vaccines.”&nbsp;It also explains why, even after the bivalent shots have been rolled out, they are only being made available to those who have undergone primary series vaccination with the pure Wuhan shots. This is otherwise difficult to explain, given that the Wuhan variant is no longer circulating whereas Omicron (in various mutations) is. It also suggests that even prior to the results of these latest studies, scientists within official circles had good reason to suspect that immunological imprinting was a factor that had to be taken into account.Meanwhile, around 20 million people have been injected with bivalent booster doses, and the CDC <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">continues to promote</a> the bivalent shot as preferable to monovalent versions (boldface in the original):<blockquote>The updated (bivalent) boosters are called “bivalent” because they protect against both the original virus that causes COVID-19 and the Omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5.Previous boosters are called “monovalent” because they were designed to protect against the original virus that causes COVID-19. They also provide some protection against Omicron, but not as much as the updated (bivalent) boosters.</blockquote>This is despite the fact that the studies mentioned above are based on the only publicly available human data relating to the bivalent shots. If there were additional data supportive of the bivalent shots, one can safely assume that it would have been released by now.A Frontline News inquiry to the CDC regarding their policy on promoting the bivalent booster shots was unanswered at the time of this publication.Based on the new CDC guidance, at least three top-line U.S. universities are requiring students to be injected with a bivalent booster dose in order to study at their institutions – <a href="https://www.harvard.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-information/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harvard</a>, <a href="https://covid19.yale.edu/covid-19-vaccination-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yale</a>, and <a href="https://covid19.columbia.edu/content/vaccine-mandate-compliance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Columbia</a>. Readers will doubtless be aware of additional educational institutions, as well as workplaces that are requiring these shots and Frontline News welcomes reader input, clarification, and comment.&nbsp;* The two studies are: <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.22.513349v1">https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.22.513349v1</a> and &nbsp;<a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.24.513619v1.full.pdf?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email">https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.24.513619v1.full.pdf?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email</a>&nbsp;

iStock-1411395488.jpg

Medical

Why are the original shots more effective against later mutations?

New bivalent (Wuhan + Omicron) boosters less effective against Omicron

<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

US News

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.

New bivalent (Wuhan + Omicron) boosters less effective against Omicron

Why are the original shots more effective against later mutations?

Related Articles

Europe may subject travelers to lie detector tests

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

Just 2 in 10 Biden supporters think marriage and kids are important for society. Why?

Couples sue Vermont for requiring gender ideology in foster care

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