I'm beyond being shocked by the debased behaviour of our authorities, but this is worth recording - Reuters is reporting the Pentagon (in partnership with a private company) conducted a psy-op on Facebook in the Philippines blaming China for Covid whilst also undermining China's vaccine.

You might think 'So what?, the vaccines were a scam & Covid did come from a China lab', but meanwhile back on the home-front, the government & its tax-payer funded ORGS were conducting another psy-op telling us the vaccines were safe & effective & the origin was natural or 'inconclusive' ... in order to protect the CCP & preserve the world order.

Facebook, which had banned any mention of a lab-leak & all vaccine critical content, noticed the fake accounts, but obeyed orders to leave them up.

As usual, there were no consequences for those involved - not the government employees, FB, or the company. In fact the private company that ran the campaign, General Dynamics IT – was rewarded with another $493 million military contract in Feb this year.

Excellent, succinct, accurate summary of the situation.

I think this story broke on roughly the same day at this one: New York Threat 'Extremely Serious,' Official Warns, as ISIS Crosses Border - Newsweek

Attention ends up going to stark warnings of imminent threat rather than some much too complicated story about the recent past which, of course, doesn't matter.

Though not directly related to your original post, this story somehow fits here:

The FDA Just Quietly Gutted Protections for Human Subjects in Research | Opinion

In a nutshell, it appears the FDA has passed a regulation that will make it easier, apparently much easier, for corporations to perform experiments on individuals without their consent.

This may not come as a surprise to those of us who view the past few years as one very big vaccine experiment without anybody's consent, but now it looks like it will be easier for the experts to conduct such experimentation in the best of times without the cover of a (clears throat) international catastrophe.

Some snippets from the editorial:

These measures have generally been strengthened since the Nuremberg Trials, formally adopted across the U.S. government through the institutional review board (IRB) system. An IRB is a committee of specialists and administrators at each institution that oversees research design and assures the protection of research subjects.

At its core, the new FDA rule change allows any IRB to broadly assume the FDA's own exemption power, dubiously granted under the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, to grant exemptions to informed consent requirements based on "minimal risk." Based on vague guidelines, it effectively gives thousands of IRB committees the unilateral ability to determine that researchers need not obtain true informed consent from research participants.

This new power applies to the IRBs housed at clinical research organizations, universities large and small, pharma companies, and multi-billion dollar corporations that provide IRB services to research groups.

...

Logically, it applies either to studies where the number of patients is so large that researchers cannot practically survey them all for permission or studies where all the participants are not even necessarily known to the researchers.

Consider that prominent physicians have recommended greatly expanding the set of patients who receive statins, a cholesterol medication, to prevent heart disease. Some have even suggested adding statins to the water supply, though no clinical trial has studied the tactic. The new rule makes it more likely that a local university IRB, which considers statins "minimal risk"—which is the prevailing notion about them, might approve a study in which it would be impossible to gain the informed consent of water drinkers in the area.

...

Another obvious application of the relaxed standards is to government-funded studies of online posts designed to identify "misinformation." Under the guise of conducting misinformation research projects, entities like the Stanford Internet Observatory have laundered government demands for censorship of speech—even true speech—in online settings like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). The literal purpose of this research is to harm its research subjects by censoring their speech and labeling them as purveyors of misinformation.

Here is the rule:

Institutional Review Board Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Minimal Risk Clinical Investigations

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule

The final rule amends FDA's regulations to allow IRBs responsible for the review, approval, and continuing review of clinical investigations to approve an informed consent procedure that does not include or that alters certain informed consent elements, or to waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, for certain minimal risk clinical investigations. For an IRB to approve a waiver or alteration of informed consent requirements for minimal risk clinical investigations, the rule requires an IRB to find and document five criteria that are consistent with the revised rule entitled “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (the revised Common Rule (January 19, 2017)).

I wonder who was behind that rule change. It smacks of something Sir Jeremy Farrar would do, Covid-conspirator-in-Chief, now head scientist at WHO, but you'd imagine big-pharma as an industry would have pushed for it as well,

As you mention, it was already activated with the Covid vaccines. They were declared "100% safe & effective", so that takes care of the "minimal risk" to subjects, then made compulsory (in a 'new normal' way - 'no jab - no job').

My next concern would be: Was this rule change made with a particular project in mind? The thing is, by scrapping consent, we will never know.

My next concern would be: Was this rule change made with a particular project in mind? The thing is, by scrapping consent, we will never know.

Correct, we will never know not only for that project, if there is one, but for all future projects. We are now involuntary test subjects.

"Oncologists have been sounding the alarm about a shocking uptick in cancer diagnoses among young adults, with some pointing the finger at junk food and processed meat."

That sounds reasonable, until you realize that junk food didn't suddenly come into existence a few years ago. I wonder if there's another compounding factor that is exacerbating that phenomenon - something that did come onto the scene a few years ago - something that had a global roll-out impact ...

Perhaps someone will crunch the big data and compare cancer rates for that age group between those who did and did not get the MRNA vaccinate.

Even if it is 'junk food', where is the definition? Where is the attempt to identify specific ingredients? There's no doubt obesity rates have ballooned in the west (I'm rather happy with that pun), so it could be diet related, but here's the thing--

There's such media effort to vaccinate, stop drinking, stop smoking, yada yada yada, but where is the public campaign to stop shoveling shit into your body? Why are there no disgusting pictures of obese people on bags of McDonald's food just as there are pictures of cancerous lungs on cigarette packs?

Junk is more dangerous than smoking. And yet there is no anti-bad food campaign. Why?

If the science says junk food is more deadly than tobacco, why are we inundated with junk food advertising? Why is it often the only option for food?

And this all gets back to the covid vaccine. When science doesn't serve the corporate bottom line, it is sidelined, ignored, refuted, sued, cancelled, and when necessary, changed.

No doubt junk food is a big contributing factor - actually, a closer look shows cancer has been rising since the 1990s. I think you reported earlier that obesity was 'the elephant in the room' (to keep the puns going) when looking at Covid deaths in general, though it remains to be seen if there's also an exacerbating effect in conjunction with mRNA vaccines.

There's such media effort to vaccinate, stop drinking, stop smoking, yada yada yada, but where is the public campaign to stop shoveling shit into your body? Why are there no disgusting pictures of obese people on bags of McDonald's food just as there are pictures of cancerous lungs on cigarette packs?

Yeah, that's a glaring hypocrisy that's bugged me for a long time. Australian sport, which promotes a full wokey-pokey image, is sponsored by McDonald's, gambling, & alcohol.

This looks promising and it will be interesting to see what happens to it. In theory, this could make vaccinations for flu, covid, and other respiratory infections unnecessary.

non-drug nasal spray

The nasal spray "forms a gel-like matrix that traps respiratory droplets, immobilizes the germs, and effectively neutralizes them, preventing infection," Joshi explained in a hospital news release.

"It blocked and neutralized almost 100% of all viruses and bacteria we tested, including influenza, SARS-CoV-2, RSV, adenovirus, K Pneumonia and more."

I'm guessing big pharma should be quite concerned about this. Will it get buried? When the next pandemic inducing virus emerges (or escapes), will this technology get fast tracked like the vaccine, or somehow found to be unusable?