Sandra Finley

Oct 032024
 

https://www.conservativebc.ca/powering_bc

Lifting the prohibition on nuclear power research and generation

A September 2024 Ipsos poll found that nearly 60% of BC residents are open to nuclear power, but the NDP government has refused to update outdated legislation which prohibits nuclear from even being considered in our energy mix.

The Conservative Party of BC will review all sources of electricity generation, including nuclear, with a goal to map out BC’s future energy needs for decades to come.

Globally, nuclear energy already provides nearly 1/5th of electricity in advanced economies. And the promising new technology of small modular reactors (SMRs) has the potential to provide clean and reliable energy with less construction time, less land consumption, lower costs, and vastly reduced ecological footprint compared to larger projects.

Following the international scientific consensus that nuclear is one of the very few ways to reliably produce clean electricity at the scale needed to sustain modern living standards, the Conservative Party of BC will:

  • Amend the Clean Energy Act to allow for nuclear power in the province’s energy mix.
  • Put safety first by conducting a comprehensive reviewof small modular reactor (SMR) seismic hazard resilience.
  • Expand the British Columbia Energy Regulator’s mandate to include nuclear power.
  • Become a partner in Canada’s Small Modular Reactor Action Plan alongside Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Ontario, New Brunswick and PEI.
  • Commit to having a small modular reactor operating by 2035 – if and only if the business case makes sense, seismic safety is addressed, and the idea has the confidence of the public.

Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan already have small modular reactor (SMR) project plans underway. SMR can be used for on-grid power generation, heavy industry, and in remote communities that currently rely heavily on diesel.

Oct 032024
 

Background:

This is a rough English translation of an article published in French just a few days ago.  It is easy to read and may serve as a useful introduction for many who have not thought much about the question of nuclear power up until now.

The original French article is reproduced after the English version.

Gordon Edwards.

 

Climate: The Salvation of Nuclear Power?

By Guillaume Hébert, 13 September 2024, Iris Research

https://tinyurl.com/3tsfxhrp

 

The nuclear industry is trying to breathe new life into itself by positioning itself as an essential solution for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Should this industry, which has been in decline for 40 years, once again be supported by governments?

 

After the Second World War, the nuclear industry promised to produce the energy of the future. Between 1950 and 1986, the number of power plants worldwide grew exponentially. But that was before the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. From then on, nuclear power entered a phase of stagnation, if not decline.

 

Between 2003 and 2022, according to the World Nuclear Industry Statuts Report, 99 nuclear reactors were started up, while 103 were shut down. If we exclude the case of China, where half of the construction starts (49 out of 99) took place during this period, the number of reactors worldwide has fallen by a net 55.

 

Graph 1: The Rise and Stagnation of Nuclear Energy

 

Source : MAKARIN et al., The Political Economic Determinants of Nuclear Power : Evidence from Chernobyl (preliminary),

National Bureau of Economic Research, 3 July 2024.

 

The nuclear industry has thus experienced a rapid decline in recent decades. By 2022, it was supplying just 9.8% of the world’s electricity, its lowest proportion in 40 years.

 

In Canada, no nuclear power plant has been built since 1992. Although Quebec is unfamiliar with this type of energy – its only nuclear power plant, Gentilly-2, began a long process of decommissioning in 2012 – there are 19 nuclear reactors in Canada: 18 in Ontario and one in New Brunswick’s Bay of Fundy.

 

GHG reduction: an opportunity for the industry?

 

That said, if the nuclear industry’s discourse is anything to go by, this picture is about to change radically. Nuclear power, it now asserts in its public relations campaigns, is essential to achieving the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. This is the message conveyed by AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin), and it’s also that of Isodope, a “nuclear energy influencer” on TikTok… A fringe of the environmental movement also believes that nuclear power can be a lifesaver in the fight against climate change.

 

With this idea gaining ground, governments are now adding nuclear power to the technological solutions at the heart of the energy transition. In fact, all the decarbonization scenarios drawn up by Canada’s Régie de l’énergie are based on an increase in nuclear power generation, raising the proportion of electricity generated by this source to 12% by 2050.

 

Given the magnitude of the shift required to meet Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, it’s easy to understand the initial reasoning of some in favor of nuclear power, however uncertain and risky it may be. Better a future that includes risk-taking than runaway climate change and apocalypse, right?

 

Five reasons not to have faith in nuclear power

 

Here are five reasons not to have any illusions about the potential of nuclear power.

 

Firstly, the nuclear industry doesn’t deliver on its promises. In fact, it has never been able to produce the electricity it was designed to generate. In fact, we’re still a long way off the mark. Graph 2 shows that projections in the 1970s were for global production of up to 5,300 gigawatts by 2000. In reality, as Chart 2 shows, at the turn of the millennium, we had barely reached 350 gigawatts.

 

Graph 2: Global Nuclear Energy Capacity from 1970 to the present

Projections made in the 1970s versus actual installed capacity (bottom yellow line)

 

 

Source : Klaus GUFLER, Short and Mid-Term trends of the Development of Nuclear Energy,  Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, June 2013. Tired by Mycle SCHNEIDER and M. V. RAMANA, « Nuclear Energy and the Non-Proliferation Treaty: A Retrospective Examination », Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023, p. 165-174.

 

The scenario of broken promises now seems to be replaying itself, as the industry has found a new model to promote: small modular reactors (SMRs). These are presented as safer and less capital-intensive than conventional power plants. But, as with carbon sequestration, this novelty is more akin to an industry fantasy than a real, effective technology from which to plan our energy future. Indeed, the reputation of small modular reactors took a hit when the very first SMR project in the USA – NuScale, in Idaho – was abandoned after the manufacturer concluded that the project could not be profitable. The government had nevertheless injected $1.4 billion of public money into this SMR, which ultimately failed to see the light of day.

 

In Canada, the same uncertainty hangs over several projects. In New Brunswick, Professor Susan O’Donnell, who has been analyzing the evolution of nuclear technology and industry discourse for several years, believes that small modular reactor projects in this province will not be viable for energy commercialization before … 2050. She also points out that the technology chosen in this province (sodium-cooled, molten-salt fast-neutron reactors) has led to the abandonment of projects in France, Japan, Germany and Scotland.

 

After broken promises, the second reason not to be fooled by the nuclear industry is its prohibitive costs. Not only is the construction of nuclear power plants extremely time-consuming (it can take one or even several decades), but the energy they subsequently produce is more expensive than other renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power. While the cost of producing these two types of energy has fallen by 90% and 72% respectively between 2009 and 2021, to between 2 and 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, the cost of nuclear power has risen by 36% to between 14 and 22 cents per kilowatt-hour. Another indication that nuclear power is unsustainable is that private investors have largely abandoned investment in the industry, and several projects are floundering for lack of private backers.

 

A third reason to be skeptical of the nuclear industry’s claims is the risk of a new escalation in nuclear weaponry. The non-proliferation treaties of the 1980s led to a spectacular reduction in the world’s stockpile of nuclear warheads. They had fallen from 70,000 in 1986 to 12,000 in 2024. But according to the Pentagon, as Figure 3 shows, the nuclear “intermission” is over, and the spectre of nuclear weapons once again hangs over the world. China wants to catch up with its rivals in this field, and Russia has outright threatened nuclear attack following its invasion of Ukraine.

 

Source : Federation of American Scientists and The Economist

 

In 2024, worldwide public spending on nuclear weapons jumped by US $10.8 billion to US $91.4 billion. To develop these weapons, you need a nuclear industry. So, at a time when private investors are not finding their money’s worth, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that states wishing to acquire and maintain a nuclear arsenal have every interest in developing expertise through the political and financial support of the civil nuclear industry. Are civil nuclear energy and nuclear weapons two sides of the same coin?

 

The fourth reason, of course, is the inevitable accidents. There have been far too many of these in the history of nuclear energy for us to imagine that they are a thing of the past. The Chernobyl disaster in the USSR, and the Fukushima disaster in Japan, have considerably cooled public opinion on nuclear power. Canada, too, has experienced nuclear accidents: at Chalk River in the 1950s, [and close calls] at Pickering in 1979 and 1983, and more recently at Darlington in 2009. Not to mention the thorny issue of nuclear waste management.

 

Finally, another reason not to rely on the nuclear industry to help us escape environmental crises is that it is becoming, like other real or fantasized technological solutions, a kind of magical thinking that sustains the illusion that an ecological transformation of our societies is possible without questioning our way of life. So much the better if all forms of harmful energy are abandoned, but they can’t spare us the need to think seriously about consumption, urban development and so on.

 

The nuclear industry has been in decline for several decades. It would now like to tie in with the ecological transition here and elsewhere to restore its growth prospects. But its promotional campaigns and lobbying of governments should not deceive us: nuclear power will not help the energy transition. At best, it acts as a distraction. At worst, it’s downright dangerous.

 

Much of the inspiration for this article came from an IRIS seminar 

with Susan O’Donnell of St. Thomas University in New Brunswick.

 

=============

Original French Language text

 

Climat: le salut par le nucléaire?

Guillaume Hébert, 13 septembre 2024, Iris-recherche  https://tinyurl.com/3tsfxhrp

L’industrie nucléaire tente de se donner un second souffle en se posant comme une solution incontournable pour atteindre l’objectif de carboneutralité en 2050. Cette industrie qui connaît un déclin depuis 40 ans doit-elle être à nouveau soutenue par les gouvernements ?

Après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, l’industrie nucléaire promettait de produire l’énergie de l’avenir. Entre 1950 et 1986, le nombre de centrales à travers le monde a connu une croissance exponentielle. Mais c’était avant que ne survienne la catastrophe de Tchernobyl en Ukraine. À partir de ce moment, l’énergie nucléaire entre dans une phase de stagnation, voire de déclin.

Graphique 1 : L’essor et la stagnation de l’énergie nucléaire

Source : MAKARIN et al., The Political Economic Determinants of Nuclear Power : Evidence from Chernobyl (préliminaire), National Bureau of Economic Research, 3 juillet 2024.

Entre 2003 et 2022, selon le World Nuclear Industry Statuts Report, 99 réacteurs nucléaires ont été mis en chantier alors que 103 ont été fermés. Si on exclut le cas de la Chine, où ont eu lieu la moitié des amorces de construction (49 sur 99) durant cette période, le nombre de réacteurs dans le monde a connu une diminution nette de 55.

L’industrie nucléaire a donc connu un déclin rapide dans les dernières décennies. En 2022, elle ne fournissait plus que 9,8 % de l’électricité dans le monde, soit sa proportion la plus faible en 40 ans.

Au Canada, aucune centrale nucléaire n’a été mise en chantier depuis 1992. Bien que le Québec soit peu familier avec ce type d’énergie – sa seule centrale nucléaire, Gentilly-2, ayant amorcé un long processus de déclassement en 2012 –, on compte 19 réacteurs nucléaires au Canada : 18 en Ontario et un dans la Baie de Fundy au Nouveau-Brunswick.

La réduction des GES : une opportunité pour l’industrie ?

Cela dit, si l’on se fie au discours de l’industrie nucléaire, ce portrait serait sur le point de changer radicalement. L’énergie nucléaire, affirme-t-elle désormais dans ses campagnes de relations publiques, est indispensable pour atteindre l’objectif de carboneutralité en 2050. C’est le message porté par AtkinsRéalis (anciennement SNC-Lavalin) et c’est aussi celui de Isodope, une influenceuse de l’énergie nucléaire » sur TikTok… Une frange du mouvement écologisteconsidère elle aussi que l’énergie nucléaire peut être salvatrice dans la lutte aux changements climatiques.

Cette idée ayant fait du chemin, les gouvernements ont entrepris d’ajouter l’énergie nucléaire aux solutions technologiques qui figurent au cœur de la transition énergétique. De fait, tous les scénarios de décarbonation élaborés par la Régie de l’énergie du Canada misent sur un accroissement de la production d’énergie nucléaire qui porterait la proportion d’électricité provenant de cette source à 12 % en 2050.

Avec l’ampleur du virage requis pour atteindre les cibles canadiennes de réduction des gaz à effet de serre (GES), on peut comprendre le raisonnement initial de certains en faveur de l’énergie nucléaire, aussi incertaine et risquée soit-elle. Mieux vaut un avenir comprenant une prise de risques plutôt que l’emballement climatique et l’apocalypse, non ?

Cinq raisons pour ne pas avoir foi dans le nucléaire

Voici cinq raisons de ne pas se faire d’illusion sur le potentiel de l’énergie nucléaire.

D’abord, l’industrie nucléaire ne tient pas ses promesses. En effet, elle n’a jamais été en mesure de produire l’électricité qu’elle avait prévu générer. On est même très loin du compte. Le graphique 2 montre que les projections des années 1970 misaient sur une production globale allant jusqu’à 5 300 gigawatts en 2000. En réalité, comme le montre le graphique 2, au tournant du millénaire, on atteignait à peine 350 gigawatts.

Graphique 2 : Capacité de production d’énergie nucléaire : projections réalisées dans les années 1970 et production réelle

Source : Klaus GUFLER, Short and Mid-Term trends of the Development of Nuclear Energy,  Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienne, juin 2013. Cité par Mycle SCHNEIDER et M. V. RAMANA, « Nuclear Energy and the Non-Proliferation Treaty: A Retrospective Examination », Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023, p. 165-174.

Le scénario des promesses brisées semble aujourd’hui en train de se reproduire au moment où l’industrie a trouvé un nouveau modèle à promouvoir : les petits réacteurs modulaires (ou small modular reactors (SMRs) en anglais). Ceux-ci sont présentés comme plus sécuritaires et exigeant moins de capitaux que les centrales conventionnelles.

Mais comme pour la séquestration du carbone, cette nouveauté s’apparente davantage à un fantasme de l’industrie qu’à une technologie réelle et efficace à partir de laquelle on peut planifier l’avenir énergétique. La réputation des petits réacteurs modulaires a d’ailleurs pris un coup lorsque le tout premier projet de SMR aux États-Unis – NuScale, en Idaho – a été abandonné après que le constructeur eut conclu que le projet ne pourrait pas être rentable. L’État a pourtant injecté 1,4 G$ d’argent public dans ce SMR qui finalement ne verra pas le jour.

Au Canada, la même incertitude plane sur plusieurs projets. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, la professeure Susan O’Donnell, qui analyse depuis plusieurs années l’évolution de la technologie nucléaire et le discours de l’industrie, estime que les projets de petits réacteurs modulaires dans cette province ne pourront être viables pour la commercialisation de l’énergie avant… 2050. Elle rappelle aussi que la technologie retenue dans cette province (réacteurs à neutrons rapides refroidis au sodium et à sels fondus) a mené à l’abandon de projets en France, au Japon, en Allemagne et en Écosse.

Après les promesses non tenues, la deuxième raison de ne pas se laisser berner par l’industrie nucléaire concerne ses coûts prohibitifs. Non seulement la construction des centrales nucléaires est très longue (elle peut durer une, voire plusieurs décennies), mais de plus, l’énergie qu’elle produit ensuite est plus coûteuse que les autres sources d’énergie renouvelable telles que l’énergie solaire ou éolienne. Alors que le coût de production de ces deux types d’énergie a diminué respectivement de 90 % et 72 % entre 2009 et 2021, se situant désormais entre 2 et 10 cents du kilowatt/heure, les coûts du nucléaire ont grimpé de 36 % et oscillent entre 14 et 22 cents du kilowatt/heure. Autre indice de la non-viabilité du nucléaire : les investisseurs privés ont largement délaissé les investissements dans cette industrie et plusieurs projets battent de l’aile faute de bailleurs de fonds privés.

Un troisième motif qui pousse à être sceptique face aux prétentions de l’industrie nucléaire réside dans le risque d’une nouvelle escalade de l’armement nucléaire. Les traités de non-prolifération des années 1980 avaient permis une diminution spectaculaire du stock d’ogives nucléaires dans le monde. Elles étaient passées de 70 000 en 1986 à 12 000 en 2024. Mais selon le Pentagone et comme le montre le graphique 3, « l’intermission » nucléaire est terminée et le spectre d’un recours aux armes nucléaires plane à nouveau sur le monde. La Chine souhaite rattraper ses rivaux dans ce domaine et la Russie a carrément brandi la menace d’attaque nucléaire à la suite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine.

En 2024, les dépenses publiques dans le monde destinées aux armes nucléaires ont fait un bond de 10,8 G$ US et atteignent désormais 91,4 G$ US. Pour développer cet armement, il faut nécessairement avoir une industrie nucléaire. Alors, au moment où les investisseurs privés n’y trouvent pas leur compte, on peut raisonnablement émettre l’hypothèse que les États qui souhaitent acquérir et entretenir un arsenal nucléaire ont tout intérêt à développer de l’expertise par le soutien politique et financier de l’industrie nucléaire civile. Est-ce que l’énergie nucléaire civile et l’armement nucléaire sont les deux faces d’une même médaille ?

Graphique 3 : Stock d’ogives nucléaires (en milliers)

Source : Federation of American Scientists et The Economist

Comme quatrième motif, il faut évidemment mentionner les inévitables accidents. Ils sont bien trop nombreux dans l’histoire de l’énergie nucléaire pour que l’on puisse s’imaginer qu’ils n’appartiennent désormais qu’au passé. La catastrophe de Tchernobyl en URSS, mais aussi celle de Fukushima au Japon ont d’ailleurs eu pour effet de considérablement refroidir l’opinion publique face à l’énergie nucléaire. Rappelons que le Canada aussi a connu des accidents nucléaires : à Chalk River dans les années 1950, à Pickering en 1979 et 1983 et plus récemment à Darlington en 2009. Et tout ça, sans compte l’épineuse question de la gestion des déchets nucléaires.

Enfin, une autre raison de ne pas miser sur l’industrie nucléaire pour nous faire échapper aux crises environnementales est qu’elle devient, comme les autres solutions technologiques réelles ou fantasmées, une sorte de pensée magique qui entretient l’illusion qu’une transformation écologique de nos sociétés est possible sans remise en question de notre mode de vie. Tant mieux si toutes les formes d’énergies nuisibles sont abandonnées, mais elles ne peuvent nous épargner une réflexion sérieuse sur la consommation, le développement des villes, etc.

L’industrie nucléaire est en déclin depuis plusieurs décennies. Elle voudrait désormais s’arrimer à la transition écologique ici et ailleurs pour se redonner des perspectives de croissance. Mais ses campagnes promotionnelles et son lobbying auprès des gouvernements ne devraient pas nous tromper : l’énergie nucléaire n’aidera pas la transition énergétique. Au mieux, elle agit comme une distraction. Au pire, elle est carrément dangereuse.

L’inspiration pour cet article provient en grande partie d’un séminaire de l’IRIS avec Susan O’Donnell de l’Université St-Thomas au Nouveau-Brunswick

Oct 032024
 

TO: Jordan Peterson & John Rustad

Either I’ve made a large mistake in logic,  or you have.

Some of the biggest mistakes in logic occur when you believe the big bad wolf,   or,  when you drink the Kool-aid in today’s idiom.

Another large area for mistakes lies in taking the word of credentialed “experts”.   Or, of sales people – –  if it’s done without your own independent research and critical thinking.

A Mistake in Government Policy can have huge implications for me, my friends, relatives, and community – – in the short, and in the long term.  For Seven Generations, in fact.  It’s worth my while to tell you what I know.

A brief story illustrates a slick manoeuvre with accounting  (or not accounting, to hold people to account):

The 1990’s,  Regina, SK.  Provincial Budget time.  The Govt of Sask pie graph for Expenditures appeared in the Leader-Post newspaper.

What the heck?  “Government  Programs and Services” showed Education, Health, Roads . . . but nothing for Servicing the Debt.

It had been running annually at 33% – –  1/3  of every tax dollar I gave to the Provincial Govt benefited the banksters, the money-lenders.  I didn’t much care for that!  Where did the piece of the pie graph go that represented what we were paying for servicing the public debt?

Sleight-of-hand

The Deputy Minister of Finance agreed to meet with me.  . . .  A good guy, forthright.  He explained that the pie had been RE-DEFINED.  (My translation – a professor waved a magic wand in a Task Force; the cost of servicing the Provincial Govt Debt disappeared.)   Never mind that the money paid to the Banksters  reduced the amount  available for “Government  Programs and Services”.  I wanted to know how much we citizens were paying for debt servicing.  It’s an indicator of sound, or UNsound Financial Management.

Debt costs were re-defined after a period of mergers and take-overs in the business sector led to big increases in the costs of debt servicing.  Corporations wanted and got a change in Accounting Principles to slide the costs off the front page.

Tax-payors Be Ware of:  a similar sleight-of-hand when evaluating the uranium-nuclear industry.

The accumulated liability for waste disappeared.  Where’d it go? . . .  An accounting sleight-of-hand moved it off the books of Cameco, Bruce Power, Point Le Preau.   It was re-defined with legal papers to belong to the NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization).  

You can see the problem if it DIDN’T get RE-DEFINED.  My numbers are old,  but one sure thing:  the numbers haven’t gone down in the meanwhile!

Using the industry’s own numbers:   2009.  The estimated cost of building a deep geological repository for nuke waste disposal is $20 BILLION dollars.  The cost of transporting 20,000 truckloads of the stuff (not counting all that has been produced since then) was, in 2009,

YOU CAN SEE HOW IT WORKS:  (which is maybe why Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta is encouraging continuing and more research into  innovative technology like electricity from hydrogen.

As long as the public continues to finance the uranium-nuke industry,  there isn’t anyone who’s going to stop it.  More waste is going to be produced, to be added to the mountains of waste that have already been produced.
What/Who does not have to be responsible for the waste they generate?

I don’t know if I can get as stupid as you think I am.

 

 

 

 

 

Oct 022024
 

PREVIOUS WAS:   For Your Selection SEPTEMBER 2024

 

For Your Selection OCTOBER 02, 2024

DO NOT MISS #11, Julian Assange.  Oct 04 – – VIDEO added.

NUCLEAR – URANIUM

Oh Lordy!  We’re back into this battle again.  Do they never learn?!

THE RULE is SHIT HAPPENS.  Human beings are humans.  They are not perfect, never.  With nuclear there is no room for shit to happen.  NO room for error.

  1. 2024-10-03 ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR B.C.  (short version, Oct 3/24)        (The “long version” of this short version is #3)
  2. 2024-10-02 I love those people in San Clemente.  They are my stars.  Their story,  the San Onofre Nuclear Reactor.
  3. 2024-09-28   The Nuclear plan for B.C. They’re using the B.C. Election
  4. 2024-09-27 B.C.’s Conservative Party wants the province to reconsider its nuclear energy ban. But does it make sense? By Shannon Waters, The Narwhal

  5. 2024-10-02 B.C. Conservatives, Powering B.C., Nuclear Plan. From their website.
  6. 2024-09-30  Plutonium vs Democracy:  A Necessary Debate.  Submission to CNSC (Cndn Nuclear Safety Commission) by Edwards & O’Donnell
  7. 2024-09-13 The Salvation of Nuclear Power?  By Guillaume Hébert
  8. 2024-09-14 TO: Jordan Peterson & John Rustad, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

 

FOOD, NUTRITION AND HEALTH

9.  2024-09-23 Roundtable Discussion on American Health and Nutrition: A Second Opinion.

These young people really excite me!  They’re blowing lids off boxes.

10.  2024-10-02 FOOD: I love you Lucy!  GM Salmon Shut Down

 

JULIAN ASSANGE – very important for everyone.  Tyranny, Free Speech, Leadership & Intelligence

11.  2024-10-01 IMPORTANT video  Julian Assange launches initiative at the Council of Europe after 14 Years of Confinement.

 

COVID

12.  2024-09-30 Covid (U.S.) : 30 Lawmakers Sponsor Bill to End Liability Protection for Vaccine Makers

13.  2024-09-24 Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces province will amend Bill of Rights to include vaccine refusal. Legislation will be tabled in the coming weeks. Video’d press conference. Hallelujah!

 

TYRANNY

14.  2024-09-16 The Amish (American side of border): A Control Group for Technofeudalism, By Tracy Thurman, Brownstone Institute

15.  2024-08-16  (Canadian side of the border)  Ontario’s Amish community faces unprecedented fines ($400,000) and legal hurdles, because of the ArriveCan App. They don’t use phones, let alone smartphones; “Apps” are unknown. By Rebel News.

 

Keep on, keepin’ on!

Sandra

Oct 022024
 
Scroll down, past the Background to the article.
BACKGROUND

Aqua Bounty (Genetically Modified Salmon) started out as a Canadian (B.C.) company.  Our network was introduced to it by German documentary film-maker Bertram Verhagg.  Bertram came to Saskatchewan to collect footage of GM canola crops, one area of exploration in his film Life Running Out of Control.

2004-11-13 Genetically modified: documentary by Bertram Verhaag “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL; Gene Food and Designer Babies.” GM fish and GM pigs.

CBAN, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network  took on official status by 2006.  Their history is pretty amazing.  https://cban.ca/about-us/history/

Our network gained the acquaintance of CBAN through the battle to stop the patenting (ownership) of life forms (Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser, started in 1998, GM canola, worked its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada).

I was sooo  impressed by the work of Lucy Sharratt, the Coordinator of CBAN, way back then and forever since.  What a blessing she is!

Some of the GMO Salmon postings on my blog.   Followed by today’s news, GM Salmon Shut Down. 

I see TENACITY and INTELLIGENCE:

2012-12-21 Engineered Fish Moves a Step Closer to Approval, New York Times

2012-12-22 FDA Pushes to Release Genetically Modified Salmon into Environment

2013-02-12 A million signatures on AVAAZ petition to the US FDA to stop the licensing of GM salmon

2012-03-03 Things are cookin`! (frankenfish) Update on Giant Genetically-Modified Salmon. Includes 2 new films from Germany.

2015-11-19 US approves GM fish. Is Health Canada next? GM salmon eggs to be produced in PEI.

2017-06-28 Breaking News: World’s first GM fish factory approved in PEI, plus action on GM alfalfa

2017-08-07 GM salmon sold in Canada

2019-02-04 Federal Court overturns controversial salmon farm policy, StarMetro Vancouver

2018-03-24 Why Farmed Salmon Are a Toxic ‘Junk Food’, Mercola

2018-03-22 Canadian government getting money from GM salmon sales

2019-02-22 GM Salmon, Special Update. CBAN

 

2024-10-02

GM Salmon Shut Down

US company AquaBounty has closed its genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) salmon “tank farm” in Prince Edward Island and put the building up for sale. Currently, AquaBounty is not producing any GM salmon and has no working fish farm.

Our press release today: GM Fish Factory in P.E.I. for Sale: Taxpayers Should Get Their Money Back.

Just four years after its first “harvest” of GM Atlantic salmon in Canada, AquaBounty is selling its on-land GM fish factory at Rollo Bay, PEI. CBAN’s member group GMO Free PEI confirms that the building is now shut. See the photos from PEI in our new factsheet along with a timeline of events and government funding: www.cban.ca/GMsalmonupdate2024

AquaBounty owes $2.2 million to the Government of Prince Edward Island from a loan provided to assist construction of the building that is now for sale. In total, over $8 million was invested by the federal and provincial governments through multiple grants and loans. In February 2023, AquaBounty announced that it would no longer produce GM salmon at Rollo Bay but in December 2023 the federal government provided AquaBounty with funds to support “scale-up” at Rollo Bay. In September 2024, the company announced that the building is for sale, however, in February 2024 the federal government gave the company another loan.

The Canadian facility was one of two sites run by AquaBounty. Both are now closed. The second, in Indiana, US, was sold earlier this year to the company Superior Fresh that only uses non-GM fish and non-GM fish food. AquaBounty says it will use funds from the building sales to finance construction of a bigger GM salmon factory in Ohio, however, construction in Ohio has been on hold since June 2023.

This was the first GM food animal sold in the world. There is no mandatory labelling of GM foods in Canada for consumers. The coalition GMO Free PEI has been actively working with CBAN to stop the GM Atlantic salmon for over 15 years.

For more information see our new factsheet at www.cban.ca/GMsalmonupdate2024

Donate today to support our work: www.cban.ca/donate.

 

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator

coordinator@cban.ca

www.cban.ca

– – – – – – – –

Sandra speaking.

  1. Sometimes “the food” gives me indigestion:

 https://aquabounty.com/about-us

At AquaBounty, we believe savoring your favorite fish and helping save the planet should be one and the same. And that’s why we believe in using science and technology to help solve global problems, like food scarcity and climate change. As leaders in aquaculture, we are continually looking for new and innovative ways to share the seafood we love, while leaving our world a better place.

2.  GMO, OTHER

2013-11-09 Genetically modified mosquitoes (Oxitec) set off uproar in Florida Keys, America Al Jazeera

2018-07-30 The mysterious case of Alberta’s rogue GMO wheat: Could it happen again? Calgary Herald

2015-06-11 GM Moths Field Release near New York Causes Outrage

Oct 012024
 

Oct 04 – – click on this youtube link,  Assange answering questions at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.  As always,  Assange is a towering but down-to-earth intellect.

I could not find the video when I posted the text below (Oct 1).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYaNscnE7rc

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Julian Assange, now a free man, reflected on his long struggle for justice, describing his choice as one between freedom and “unrealizable justice.” In a plea to European lawmakers, Assange called for stronger protection of freedom of expression amidst increasing “impunity, secrecy, and retaliation for telling the truth.”

This marked his first public statement since a June plea deal ended nearly 14 years of imprisonment, confinement at an embassy, and house arrest in the UK. Assange’s message highlighted his disillusionment with the legal safeguards for journalists and whistleblowers, which he argued “only existed on paper” or failed to provide meaningful recourse. “I eventually chose freedom over unrealizable justice, after being detained for years and facing a 175-year sentence with no effective remedy,” he told the Council of Europe in Strasbourg today.

He continued, “I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I pled guilty to journalism.” Assange was clear in his warning to European legislators that journalistic rights were under severe threat, saying, “The criminalization of news-gathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere.”

Related: Assange’s Plea: A Controversial End to a 14-Year Legal Struggle and the Impact on Free Speech

Assange became a figure of worldwide renown in 2010 after WikiLeaks published leaks from former soldier Chelsea Manning, revealing that US forces in Iraq had killed unarmed civilians, including Reuters employees. No one faced justice for these acts. Months later, Assange angered US authorities further by releasing 250,000 diplomatic cables, causing a diplomatic firestorm.

After years of legal battles, Assange walked free from a US district court in Saipan in June, following a plea deal where he admitted guilt to conspiring to obtain and release classified national defense documents. He received a 62-month sentence, effectively covered by his time served at London’s Belmarsh Prison.

The WikiLeaks founder spent five years in Belmarsh, preceded by seven years of refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy and more than a year under house arrest. British authorities arrested him in 2019 after Ecuador revoked his asylum, ending his nearly seven-year stay in their London embassy. Assange had initially taken refuge there in 2012, fearing extradition to the US via Sweden, where he faced allegations of sexual assault. Though Swedish prosecutors dropped the investigation in 2017, Assange remained in the embassy for two more years, worried about US extradition.

He also disclosed that his wife, Stella, and their then-infant son had suffered from US surveillance, including an alleged attempt to collect DNA from his baby’s diaper. Throughout the 90-minute address, seated beside his wife, Assange responded with composure, though he ultimately declined to answer a final question, citing exhaustion.

Reflecting on his experience, Assange described it as “profound and surreal” to transition from a cell in Belmarsh to appearing before European lawmakers. He struggled to convey the harshness of his isolation, remarking, “The experience of isolation for years in a small cell is difficult to convey. It strips away one’s sense of self, leaving only the raw essence of existence.”

The following day, European lawmakers were set to debate a draft resolution condemning the US’s actions. Drafted by Thórhildur Sunna Ӕvarsdóttir, an Icelandic MP with the Pirate Party, the resolution sharply criticized the misuse of the US Espionage Act, noting its “dangerous chilling effect” on publishers, journalists, and whistleblowers reporting governmental misconduct. It also criticized the UK for failing to defend Assange’s right to free expression.

Oct 012024
 

The End the Vaccine Carveout Act would end the broad protection from liability for injuries resulting from vaccines listed on the CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule.

liability definition and vaccine bottle

A bill introduced late last week in the U.S. House of Representatives would end the liability protections Congress gave vaccine makers under the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Thirty Republican lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors to House Bill 9828, End the Vaccine Carveout Act. The proposed legislation would end the broad protection from liability for injuries resulting from vaccines listed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Childhood Immunization Schedule.

“The … vaccine makers are criminal enterprises that have paid tens of billions in criminal penalties over the past decade,” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) founder and chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement on the bill.

Kennedy, who has long advocated for eliminating liability protection for vaccine manufacturers, added, “By freeing them from liability for negligence, the 1986 statute removed any incentive for these companies to make safe products. If we want safe and effective vaccines we need to end the liability shield.”

CHD, React19 and The American Family Project also supported the development of the bill, the press release said.

REACT19 founder Brianne Dressen, who experienced a debilitating COVID-19 vaccine injury as a volunteer in AstraZeneca’s clinical trial, announced the bill and its co-sponsors in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

“People harmed are long overdue for a compensation process that actually works, and it’s time for the drug companies to pick up the tab,” she said.

‘Complex sham compensation program’ in place since 1986 act

Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to address the risks of vaccines — which Congress and vaccine makers acknowledged had “unavoidable” side effects.

The act set up a “no-fault” system whereby instead of suing the manufacturers, people injured by vaccines can file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which adjudicates the claims.

The VICP was meant to insulate vaccine makers from lawsuits that could bankrupt them while ensuring that injury victims had a straightforward, non-adversarial and fair path to compensation.

The program is funded by a 75-cent-per-dose tax, paid by vaccine makers, for every vaccine included in the program.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers the VICP, also known as the “vaccine court.” Court-appointed “special masters” — typically lawyers who previously represented the U.S. government — manage and decide the individual claims.

The proceedings are more informal than a typical courtroom. There is no judge or jury, and the rules of evidence, civil procedure and discovery do not apply.

In practice, getting compensation through the VICP has been notoriously difficult. Critics say the program has devolved to protect government agencies and corporations rather than the health of vaccinated children.

CHD CEO Mary Holland said the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act effectively left parents and children injured by vaccines with no substantive way to get any compensation while giving vaccine makers a free pass.

“For over 35 years, parents of children injured and killed by government-recommended vaccines have been left with no meaningful redress — only a complex, sham compensation program that pits grieving families against the government, while Big Pharma enjoys no liability,” she said.

“During that same time, chronic health conditions in children — autism, ADHD [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder], severe allergies, asthma — have skyrocketed,” Holland said.

In some cases, people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case in the VICP, or who don’t get a timely decision, can sue the manufacturer for limited causes of action, such as fraud — as is the case in many of the over 200 gardasil injury lawsuits currently being argued against Merck in federal court.

Special protections for COVID drugmakers

Vaccines administered under emergency use authorization (EUA), such as the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, aren’t covered by the VICP.

Instead, COVID-19 vaccine makers are protected from all liability by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which grants producers of vaccines, medications and medical devices total freedom from liability for any injuries arising from “countermeasures” used to address a public health or national security threat.

The PREP Act directs such “countermeasures” to be covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fully licensed versions of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people ages 12 and up, it’s unclear if the fully licensed formulations are being administered, or if some people are still receiving EUA formulations.

COVID-19 vaccines for infants and children ages 6 months through age 11 have not yet been fully licensed — however, they were added to the childhood schedule.

Still, all COVID-19 vaccine injuries  — whether from a fully licensed or EUA formulation — remain covered only through the CICP.

However, for the tens of thousands of people injured by the COVID-19 vaccine, compensation through this program has proven nearly impossible.

To date, the CICP has paid only 16 claims for COVID-19 vaccine injuries, totaling $425,301.55. Except for one payment, all of the claims resulted in compensation of $8,962 or less.

The Pfizer (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax) COVID-19 vaccines for ages 12 and up were fully approved by the FDA, but people injured by those vaccines still must apply to the CICP program for compensation. No COVID-19 vaccines have been fully approved for children under 12. However, the CDC added the EUA COVID-19 shots, recommended for children ages 6 months through 11 years, to the childhood schedule. Children injured by unlicensed COVID-19 vaccines also are covered under the CICP — not the VICP.

During the pandemic, Pfizer and Moderna generated the largest profits in history for a drug from their COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Pfizer made $37 billion in 2021, and slightly more in 2022 from the COVID-19 vaccine alone. Moderna generated over $18 billion in profits in 2021 and $19 billion in 2022.

The most current data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) show that between Dec. 14, 2020, and Aug. 30, 2024, a total of 1,602,516 total adverse events related to the COVID-19 vaccine were reported to VAERS, including 37,390 deaths. There were 311,544 serious injuries reported.

Research also shows that VAERS tends to provide an underestimation of vaccine injuries. Most people don’t report their vaccine injuries to VAERS. Research also has shown that many VAERS reports are delayed or deleted from public view for reasons that are not transparent.

Several lawsuits are currently challenging the constitutionality of the PREP Act, and others have made legal arguments that the PREP Act doesn’t apply in particular cases. However, recently many of these cases have been dismissed in state and federal courts.

Last week, after the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed a case against a hospital regarding a man injured by remdesivir, a drug covered by the Prep Act, Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD, told The Defender the decision highlighted “that we need legislative action to undo the damage created by acts such as PREP and the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.”

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.

Please Donate Today

What the ‘urgently needed’ legislation will do

Holland said the End the Vaccine Carveout Act is “urgently needed”:

“This legislation will help end Big Pharma’s reign over government. The corrupt public-private partnership of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has suppressed science, stacked the deck against families, subverted the democratic marketplace of checks and balances, and removed citizens’ rights to a trial by jury.

“Americans deserve better.”

The bill proposes to remove the requirement for vaccine-injured people to pursue compensation in the vaccine court. Under the law, someone injured by a vaccine would be able to pursue civil action against a vaccine maker, and to seek compensation through the VICP or both.

However, once a person is awarded compensation in civil court, they will no longer be eligible for compensation through the VICP.

The 1986 law also set a short statute of limitations for seeking injury compensation to two or three years of the death or injury, respectively. However, it often takes longer than that for people to realize that a vaccine caused their injury or illness.

The proposed law would allow anyone injured since the program became effective in 1988 to file a lawsuit.

Finally, the bill would end the protection from liability for the COVID-19 vaccines, allowing people injured by the vaccine to sue the vaccine makers in court.

“COVID-19 vaccines must be redefined as vaccines and not ‘countermeasures,’ so that the PREP Act’s liability carveout can no longer apply,” according to a white paper that provided justification for the bill.

The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. Mr. Kennedy, an independent candidate for president of the U.S., is on leave from CHD. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy or his support for President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Sep 282024
 

RELATED:  (Canadian Amish)

2024-08-16 Ontario’s Amish community faces unprecedented fines ($400,000) and legal hurdles, because of the ArriveCan App. They don’t use phones, let alone smartphones; “Apps” are unknown. By Rebel News.

With thanks to Dan for sending.  With thanks to Tracy Thurman and to the Brownstone Institute for publishing.

Re:  American Amish

Technofeudalism

Life in the United States has changed drastically in the last several decades. Technology, pharmaceutical and medical interventions, dietary shifts, educational policies, and social trends have radically altered our way of life. Over the same time period, Americans have become fatter, sicker, and less happy. Chronic disease has skyrocketed, and our children suffer ill health at unprecedented levels.

Yet there is one group that has not experienced many of these same changes: The Amish and other Plain Sect churches. By opting out of a host of our modern social ills, they have avoided many of the negative outcomes impacting the rest of America, particularly our children.

When I speak of the Amish, I am primarily referring to the Older Order Amish but much applies to Old Order Mennonites and other plain sect communities as well.

The Amish entered the American Experiment in the Colonial era after fleeing violent religious persecution in Europe. Their community customs are dictated by the Ordnung, a set of church rules designed to encourage a simple, modest life, prevent social decay, and bind the community together. Members are pacifists who eschew cars for horses and buggies and reject current fashions for modest homemade dresses and bonnets or black pants, shirts, and hats. They forgo screen-based entertainment of all kinds.

The faithful live in tight-knit but decentralized church districts, with each district making most of its own decisions. Liberal churches allow battery-operated lights, indoor plumbing, and phones or computers in the workshop, while conservative congregations use gas lamps, build outhouses, and require members to walk to public payphone booths scattered throughout the neighborhood. Even if it’s allowed in a business setting, technology is forbidden in the home.

Because the Amish have rejected modern life, they have unwittingly become a control group for many of the social ills that began to plague the rest of us over the past few decades – particularly the trends associated with Big Tech, Big Education, dissolution of the family, Big Food, Big Pharma, and corporatized medicine.

Big Education

The Amish decision to opt out of public education changed schooling in America forever and gave Americans a right that many other countries’ citizens do not have: the right to homeschool. From early childhood on, plain sect children learn to work alongside their parents and siblings. Chores are standard, and every member of the household contributes.

The Amish believe in formal education in their own one-room schoolhouses through the eighth grade, after which their children become adults and take on full-time work responsibilities. Beginning in 1921 with Ohio’s Bing Act which mandated school attendance through the age of 18, the Amish became a target of government officials looking to force church members into compliance. Over the next thirty years, hundreds of Amish fathers faced fines and imprisonment for refusing to subject their children to compulsory education.

Eventually, outsiders, recognizing the grave threat to religious liberty in America, founded The National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom and did what the Amish were not allowed to do for themselves: they fought back. In the landmark Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court held that the state cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights.

American families can homeschool their children to this day because of the stand taken by the Amish and the Americans who fought to protect them. Today, Amish children still attend one-room schoolhouses through eighth grade and continue with apprenticeships thereafter, and by opting out of Big Education, they show other Americans that one can become a fully functional, prosperous, contributing member of society without the burden of hundreds of thousands in college debt.

The Welfare State

The Amish believe that God and the church community should provide for members who are in need. As a result, they opt out of the welfare system and prove that a tight-knit community can form an adequate safety net. They refuse government handouts of any kind. The Amish I know used their Covid stimulus checks as fire starters rather than taking them to the bank. Most are exempted from paying into Social Security and all refuse to accept the program’s benefits. Some of them refuse to get Social Security numbers and birth certificates.

Churches and midwives keep handwritten records instead which are never entered into government databases. The Amish do not put their elderly family members or the disabled into nursing facilities – rather, the extended family provides care in the home, showing Americans that life without a welfare state is still possible.

Big Pharma, Corporatized Medicine, and the Health Insurance Cartel

One in five American children suffers from a chronic illness that has continued for more than a year. One in 36 of our youth have autism. One of every nine kids is diagnosed with ADHD. Americans take pills at a higher rate than almost any other country in the world – two-thirds of adults are taking prescription drugs. More than one in four American teenagers is on at least one prescription drug – often to treat anxiety and depression.

By contrast, among the Amish, use of prescription drugs is the exception rather than the rule, and few children take one at all. Most Amish are suspicious of modern medicine. Because they reject the idea of insurance and pay cash for all services, they are not bound into a system where care is limited to modalities an insurance carrier approves. Herbal remedies, midwives, chiropractors, and functional medicine practitioners come first, with hospitals reserved for emergency scenarios.

The community maintains a charitable fund to assist members facing large hospital bills related to surgery or accident. Charitable auctions are often held to raise the needed funds. Most children are born at home with the assistance of lay midwives. The Amish community has protected this option for other Americans: whenever states with a strong Amish presence have tried to mandate hospital births or doctor oversight, they face tens of thousands of Amish who refuse to comply. Larger Amish communities have their own private clinics staffed by trusted functional medicine doctors, chiropractors, herbalists, and physical therapists who respect their way of life.

The rejection of Big Pharma is particularly striking: Twenty years ago, a small percentage of Amish parents gave their children a few vaccines such as MMR and TdaP, but today that rate is likely in the single digits. Of course, there are no vaccine mandates for attending Amish schools. Autism, ADHD, and autoimmune diseases are almost unheard of in this population.

I was speaking recently at an Amish festival and asked the 400 Amish folk in the audience if any of them knew any unvaccinated Amish children with these diseases. The attendees easily knew 5,000 children in total, probably many more. Not one person knew an Amish child diagnosed with ADHD. Three audience members responded that they knew of an Amish child with autism, but upon further questioning, one of the children in question had received the MMR vaccine, and the two others were unsure of the vaccine status of the children.

Given the prevalence of these afflictions in wider society, it is startling to encounter a community that has been almost completely spared. Many Americans are starting to notice and are asking questions about this phenomenon – questions that pharmaceutical companies would rather we did not ask.

The Covid Control Group

The Amish response to Covid also served as a useful data point in the madness of 2020. When Pennsylvania issued stay-at-home orders and strongly encouraged churches to end in-person services in late March, some Amish congregations initially complied. However, their semi-annual communion service, scheduled in early May, brought the issue to a head. Each church district made its own decision, but nearly all chose to gather and mark this sacred occasion, fully aware that they might experience an outbreak.

Because their Ordnung forbids the consumption of alcohol, grape juice is used instead, passed down the rows in a pitcher out of which each adult drinks. Over the following two weeks, many did become ill with flu-like symptoms. Most opted for home-based care. The few who were hospitalized did poorly, suffering the remdesivir-and-ventilator fate. Those who stayed home used herbal remedies or ivermectin and most recovered fully and quickly.

By the end of June, the nearly 50,000 Amish in central Pennsylvania had achieved herd immunity with little excess death and continued life as normal. Next to none of them took the Covid shot – I have not heard of a single person who did. I have also heard of no myocarditis, increased infertility, increases in sudden deaths, or disability as we have seen throughout the rest of this country. Pfizer may have eliminated the control group in their clinical trials, but this one continues to show us what could have been if Americans had not lined up for an experimental injection.

Big Tech

When it comes to the effects of Big Tech, American children and teens are in crisis. As documented in numerous studies and in the book The Anxious Generation by Professor Jonathan Haidt, screen time rewires children’s brains in very harmful ways, yet most parents of four-year-olds report that their child already has their own tablet, with early childhood screen time increasing tenfold from 2020 to 2022. American teenagers spend more than 8 hours per day staring at screens. Major depression has increased by 150% among teenagers since 2010, and emergency room visits for self-harm and suicide attempts by girls aged 10-14 have increased by 188%. Suicide rates for boys aged 10-14 have almost doubled, and for girls have almost tripled.

For the Amish, meanwhile, life continues much as it did a century ago: Phones are stationary objects that might be shared by multiple families. There are no televisions, no tablets, no radios, and no internet except for work computers among the most progressive groups. The effect on their children compared to the current generation of American offspring is stark: Amish youngsters go to a one-room schoolhouse, walk home, and help their parents with chores until dinner rather than communing with the digital world in their rooms.

Teenagers work full-time, apprenticed to Amish craftsmen, farmers, or homemakers, and master valuable life skills while their secular peers are still high school freshmen. Most kids walk barefoot, healthily grubby, to care for the horses or the other household animals. They get plenty of sun, socialization, and family time. Teens join youth groups where they sing, play volleyball, and meet their potential spouses. Depression and anxiety are rare. Medications are even rarer. Self-harm is nearly unheard of. Mentioning gender dysphoria will bring you blank looks – there’s no transgender epidemic among the Amish. Clearly, the Big Tech gulag is another cultural ill that the Amish have largely avoided, at least until now.

But that may change if the US government has its way. Already, Amish are being excluded from basic activities because of their religious objection to photo IDs. The ATF now insists that Amish cannot buy or sell hunting rifles to each other without a federal firearms license, which requires a photo ID – something the Amish cannot acquire for religious reasons. The ATF has set up undercover operations to catch and prosecute Amish farmers for doing just that.

If society’s managers get their way and succeed in introducing central bank digital currencies and phasing out cash, it will cause significant issues for the Amish, most of whom will not use a credit card and many of whom even object to debit cards. Smartphones, digital IDs, and digital wallets would be entirely forbidden for most Amish congregations, so this church stands as a roadblock to mandating these policies. To make these tools of totalitarianism universal, the Amish way of life would have to be destroyed.

The Agricultural Cartel and Raw Milk

Finally, the Amish provide many Americans with the ability to opt out of Big Food with direct-to-consumer sales at their local farms.

Not all Amish eat a healthy diet by any means. Many have fallen for the processed junk food diet embraced by the rest of America. However, a growing number of them are turning to nutrient-dense, farm-fresh foods to improve their health.

In the 1600s, religious persecution in Europe forced the Amish and Mennonites into areas of inhospitable land where few crops would grow. They became renowned for devising methods of enriching soil and growing nutritious crops from challenging terrain. Today, on a per capita basis, they hold more farming knowledge than any other United States ethnic group and are among the few who still know how to grow crops without fossil fuels, as they continue to use mules rather than tractors for farm work.

For those who want to opt out of the Big Food paradigm, the best option is buying direct from a farmer – known as the direct-to-consumer market. Amish and Mennonite farmers provide regeneratively grown produce, meats, and dairy to more than a million Americans who choose to buy directly from these farmers and feed many millions more through middlemen. Notably, a large percentage of the raw milk products sold in this country come from Amish and Mennonite farms. Raw milk is hated by public health bureaucrats and loved by freedom-minded health health-conscious people everywhere. It’s not a coincidence that many of the producers targeted for raw milk harassment over the last decade have been Amish farms.

While working on the case of Amos Miller – an Amish farmer targeted for selling raw milk products in Pennsylvania – I had the privilege of reviewing hundreds of sworn affidavits from his customers detailing how his products have healed or managed chronic autoimmune conditions. The most common ailments were Crohn’s Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, and other digestive disabilities. Many succeeded in weaning off their prescription medications thanks to consuming raw butter, cream, and fermented products like kefir – all of which are banned in Miller’s home state even with a raw milk permit. He refuses to get a permit because doing so would obligate him to stop making the very products on which his customers depend.

The federal government framed Miller for a listeria illness and a listeria death, both of which his legal team has now fully debunked using the CDC’s own data. Miller is far from alone – there are many Amish farms facing harassment by bureaucrats based on dubious test results. Meat farmers are experiencing similar fates if they dare to process their own meat and provide it to their neighbors. These policies threaten to bankrupt the small farms who supply the best real, nutritious, toxin-free food our nation has to offer.

Eliminating the Control Group

Fifty years ago, most Amish men were farmers. Twenty-five years ago, it was down to about half. Today, only a small minority continue to farm, and that number continues to shrink. The rest become carpenters or tradesmen, and some are forced to adopt technology in order to survive. Inevitably, their young men bring home influences from the modern world which impact their families. The culture also depends on sons working alongside their fathers, learning work ethic and mastering manhood. Because of child labor laws, carpenters and tradesmen cannot bring their sons to work with them the way farmers can – and it’s having a significant impact on the next generation.

I’ve discussed this issue with hundreds of members of the Amish community, and there is a grave consensus: If they keep losing their farms, they will lose their way of life forever. Their churches may still meet, the people will still exist, and the name may not change, but Amish culture as we know it will be a thing of the past, and the control group for Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, and Big Education and the welfare state will be gone, along with one of the best sources of real food in our nation.

I believe there are powerful interests that would love such an outcome, because the Amish way of life is drawing far more attention now than it ever has, and is inspiring others to look for ways to escape the control grid. Many Americans have begun to notice that by opting out of the Great Reset policies, the Amish are healthier, happier, and have stronger communities. This social control group shows us that you don’t need 16 or 20 years of educational indoctrination from government schools in order to be a productive member of society.

They demonstrate the benefits of choosing not to be slaves to our technology. We see that children thrive without screen time, have superior mental health as a result, and fare better when they roam outdoors, get sun exposure, get dirty, and learn to work alongside their family. Amish health outcomes indicate that kids who are not subjected to dozens of injections have far lower levels of ADHD and autism, and few allergies or autoimmune diseases either. We can observe that nutrient-dense, farm-fresh foods can help prevent obesity, heal disease, and cut dependence on Big Pharma.

The Amish show us all these truths, and the would-be controllers of our society don’t like this. When one runs a society-wide experiment of technological addiction, of social fragmentation, of scaring people out of having children, of government school indoctrination, of universal vaccination, digital ID, digital wallets, and vaccine passports, it’s a problem if the human lab rats in the experiment can look outside the cage and see that another life is possible.

Join the Control Group

Americans are not just noticing, they are following suit. At Amish homesteading festivals a decade ago, one would only see a handful of outsiders, but now thousands flock to such events to learn how to return to a simpler, freer way of life.

No culture is perfect, the Amish included, but we would be fools not to protect this control group.

Join our Amish friends in opting out. Take action now to protect yourself and your family and exit the control pen before the gate closes. Resist mandatory vaccination, digital IDs, digital currency, smartphone dependency, and media addiction. Get outdoors, and get your kids outdoors working with you. Exit government schools if at all possible, and explore the homeschooling rights that the Amish have protected for you. Build a local community of like-minded people, and create new pockets of resistance. Grow your own food if you can, and if not, find yourself a farmer, develop a close relationship with them, and support them as if your life depends on it – because ultimately, it does.

As our governments rush headlong towards technocracy, it can feel like time is running out to halt their agenda. But if we act now and follow the example of the Amish, we can reclaim the wisdom of prior generations and find that a life outside dystopia is still possible.

Author

Tracy Thurman

Tracy Thurman is an advocate for regenerative farming, food sovereignty, decentralized food systems, and medical freedom. She works with the Barnes Law Firm’s public interest division to safeguard the right to purchase food directly from farmers without government interference.

 

 

 

Sep 262024
 

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/roundtable-discussion-on-american-health-and-nutrition-a-second-opinion/roundtable-discussion-american-health-nutrition-second-opinion/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chdtv&utm_id=20240925

“Sen. Ron Johnson (USA) and a panel of experts provide a foundational and historical understanding of the changes that have occurred over the last century within public sanitation, agriculture, food processing, and healthcare industries which impact the current state of national health.”

Panelists:

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  • Jillian Michaels
  • Jordan Peterson
  • Max Lugavere
  • Vani Hari
  • Calley Means
  • Marty Makary, M.D., MPH
  • Brigham Buhler
  • Joe Holder
  • Mikhaila Fuller
  • Dr. Chris Palmer
  • Jason Karp
  • Courtney Swan
  • Grace Price
  • Alex Clark
Sep 242024
 

BREAKING: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces province will amend Bill of Rights to include vaccine refusal. Legislation will be tabled in the coming weeks.

With thanks to Dan – –

2024-09-24 1:52 p.m.:

Subject:  We may move to Alberta yet!

Especially if the BC NDP remain in power this election.

1) the right over vaccinations and all medical decisions,

2) the right to not be deprived of property and

3) the right of individuals to acquire, keep and use firearms.

https://x.com/westcdnfirst/status/1838634795854966951