2021-11-01 My Current Opinion on Covid-19 Situation

2021-11-01  MEK opinion on Covid-19 situation

The Vaccine Cards are issued by authorities and accepted by businesses and government agencies after the first vaccine jab.  Thus, government and businesses including public travel all accept one as vaccinated with full privileges of the vaccinated when you have the official vaccination card.   However, you are considered fully vaccinated only two weeks after your second vaccination (first if Johnson-Johnson vaccine).  However, if you get minor or asymptomatic Covid-19 or require hospitalization or die while having Covid-19 before you are fully vaccinated, you will count as an unvaccinated case!

Since May 2021, the CDC no longer tracks minor Covid-19 cases not requiring hospitalization among  the vaccinated, while all unvaccinated cases are still tracked.  Earlier in the year the CDC and White House called Covid-19 a disease of the unvaccinated despite the fact most people were unvaccinated and not officially vaccinated at that time.

All these policies have skewed the statistics against the unvaccinated.  But there is more.   

Finally, the CDC and White House have slowly acknowledged that the vaccinated can still get Covid-19 and pass it on to others. They have acknowledged that vaccines loose effectiveness within months thus booster shots have been recommended.  They have yet to acknowledge that those have gotten Covid-19 have better and longer lasting immunity from reinfection (a known scientific fact).  A study in Israel found up to 13 times more immunity by those who had Covid-19 infections as opposed to just vaccinations.

The CDC and Whitehouse are also slowly admitting that it is those with serious existing morbidities who have comprised the vast number of deaths associated with Covid-19. These people had low health immunity and serious morbidities and thus are more susceptible to getting Covid-19 which pushed them over the edge. It is wrong to exaggerate and assign their deaths merely to Covid-19 without emphasizing their existing life shortening morbidities.  Very few people, whose deaths are associated with Covid-19, didn’t suffer from one or more morbidities.

CDC’s own data shows clearly that those under 25 and almost 100% of children rarely have any serious complications from getting Covid-19.   Meanwhile the poorly tracked CDC The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a 1000% increase in adverse vaccine reactions from all vaccines combined in previous years.  There are some especially troubling adverse effects among children such that the risk of vaccines has been greater than Covid-19 among otherwise healthy children

Over 95% of adults unvaccinated or vaccinated do not require any hospitalization. So little is actually gained by getting vaccinated for most people, although perhaps Covid-19 cases might be milder for the vaccinated (CDC does not collect data on this, so this is just speculation at this time).

The Pfizer and Modena are actually not vaccines as defined previously by the medical establishment.  They are experimental genetic driven “vaccines”.  The usual blind study trials that test for safety were cut short by years for these “vaccines” when they were approved as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines. 

Few realize that the Pfizer vaccine used in employee mandated vaccine programs, just after Pfizer had won vaccine approval from CDC, were still the old EUA vaccines allowing Pfizer to clear its large inventory of the EUA vaccines.  Further the experimental EUAs had immunity from any legal action by those seriously affected by the vaccines. However, the approved vaccine known as Comirnaty has no legal protections for Pfizer, so Pfizer has been in no rush to switch to the approved vaccine.   Also, one should be aware the experimental mRNA vaccines are vehemently opposed by the inventor of the mRNA technology because of the lack of significant testing

All these facts beg the question, why are totally experimental vaccines being mandated and forced on the general population with the extreme tactics of publicly ostracizing those who choose not to be vaccinated?  They also question the wisdom and reasons for having vast lockdowns which negatively disrupted the economy and many people’s livelihood and future welfare! The government’s reactions to Covid-19 have created a massive flow of wealth from the middle class to the super rich and has created the foundation for an authoritative if not totalitarian future society!

Certainly, there should have been open debate concerning government Covid-19 policies, rather than the draconian censorship and treatment of the unvaccinated.

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Censorship, coronavirus, Covid-19, Totalitarianism, vaccinations, VAERS | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2021-09-14 CCC District V News – COVID-19 Proof of Vaccination or Test Required for Some Contra Costa Businesses

District V News & Updates
COVID-19 Proof of Vaccination or Test Required for Some Contra Costa Businesses
Contra Costa County joined San Francisco, Berkeley and other communities across the U.S. today with a countywide health order that increases COVID-19 safety in restaurants, gyms and other indoor businesses where there is elevated risk of the virus spreading.

The new order, effective September 22, requires patrons of these businesses to show proof they are fully vaccinated to enter indoor areas, or a negative COVID-19 test result from the past 72 hours.

Contra Costa has endured a severe spike in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations this summer due to the increasing prevalence of the highly infectious delta variant of the virus and unvaccinated residents.

While the peak of the surge seems to have passed, data show the county’s daily case rate remains as high as it was last February. There were 15 COVID-related deaths in Contra Costa from August 25 to 31, and 20 from September 1 to 7, the two highest seven-day totals since March. Unvaccinated residents account for 95.9% of the county’s deaths so far.

COVID-19 case rates are about five times higher in unvaccinated county residents compared to fully vaccinated residents, hospitalization rates are approximately 16 times higher, and death rates are approximately 22 times higher.

“This order is necessary now to save lives, protect our overburdened healthcare system, and slow the pandemic enough to keep our schools open,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County Health Officer. “Reducing community transmission of the virus now is key to preventing future spikes in cases from overwhelming our county’s hospitals during the winter months.”

The new order applies to businesses where people remove face coverings to eat or drink indoors, such as restaurants, bars and entertainment venues, and to gyms and other indoor fitness facilities, including yoga and dance studios, where patrons breathe more heavily due to exercise.

The order also includes a requirement for workers in indoor areas of these businesses to show proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 by November 1 or test weekly for COVID-19.

To show proof of vaccination, patrons must show photo ID and their vaccination record cards from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), or copies or pictures of their cards. Documentation from healthcare providers will also be accepted, as will digital COVID-19 vaccine records issued by the State of California.

Visit myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov for a link to your digital vaccination, which can be downloaded on to your smartphone.

Visit cchealth.org/coronavirus for more information about this health order, or to find a safe, fast and free COVID-19 vaccination in Contra Costa County.

[MEK Note: The Vaccine Cards are issued by authorities and accepted by businesses and government agencies after the first vaccine jab. Thus government and businesses including providing public travel all accept one as vaccinated with full privileges of the vaccinated with the official vaccination card. However, you are considered fully vaccinated only two weeks after your second vaccination ( first if Johnson-Johnson). However, if you get minor or asymptomatic Covid-19 or require hospitalization or die while having Covid-19 before fully vaccinated, you will count as an unvaccinated case! ]

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Coronavirus

COVID – 19

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Contra Costa County, coronavirus, Covid-19, Federal Glover, vaccinations | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2021-10-07 CCC District V News – Criteria for Lifting Indoor Masking Order

District V News & Updates
Contra Costa Establishes Criteria for Lifting Indoor Masking Order

Contra Costa County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano today announced the criteria that will be used to lift the current indoor-masking order in our county:

* The county reaches the CDC’s moderate (yellow) COVID-19 transmission tier and remains there for at least three weeks;

* AND There are fewer than 75 COVID-19 hospitalizations in the county;

* AND One of the following conditions is met: 

* 80% of the total population is fully vaccinated
* Eight weeks have passed since a COVID-19 vaccine has been authorized for emergency use by federal and state authorities for 5- to 11-year-olds

When these criteria are met – which is project to be at the end of 2021 or beginning of 2022 – Dr. Farnitano will lift the local masking order, which requires everyone to wear face coverings in indoor public settings regardless of vaccination status. After the local masking order is lifted, unvaccinated residents will still need to wear masks in indoor public settings under the state’s face-covering order.

Other COVID-19 related health orders that are in place at that time would not be affected, including the health order related to verifying vaccination or testing status as high-risk businesses. 

While COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined recently, transmission rates remain relatively high, and it will be weeks before the order is lifted. Contra Costa County has yet to reach the CDC’s moderate (yellow) tier and remains in the higher “substantial” (orange) COVID-19 transmission tier. 

The criteria were established by Dr. Farnitano in collaboration with other Bay Area health officers who enacted similar masking orders in early August as the delta variant fueled a surge in cases and hospitalizations. 

 (MEK Note: This totally ignores the reality that vaccinated people can have Covid-19 and pass it on to others. Last time this policy was implemented back in May 2021 by the CDC and White House there was a massive surge in Covid-19 cases two weeks later which was conveniently blamed on the unvaccinated despite the fact that they were still masked and shunned from these vaccinated gatherings! Instigating this policy just at the beginning of the flu season and holidays is dangerous and might cause another surge in Covid-19)

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Coronavirus

COVID – 19

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Contra Costa County, coronavirus, Covid-19, Federal Glover, vaccinations | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

2021-10-14 CCC District V News – Lifting Masking Requirements in Some Indoor Settings on Nov. 1

‌


District V News & Updates


Contra Costa to Lift Masking Requirements inSome Indoor Settings on Nov. 1

With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations declining, Contra Costa County will lift masking requirements in certain indoor settings where everyone is fully vaccinated on Nov. 1. Eligible settings include controlled spaces not open to the general public, such as:

OfficesGyms and fitness centersEmployee commuter vehiclesIndoor college classesOrganized gatherings in any other indoor setting, such as a religious gathering

Eligible participating businesses, organizations and hosts must verify that all patrons, employees and attendees are fully vaccinated before allowing people inside their facilities not to wear face coverings.  There can be no more than 100 persons present at these facilities, and the group of those present must gather on a regular basis. Those present should also not have COVID-19 symptoms
.
“This will allow vaccinated people to feel safe removing their masks at the office and when they’re working out at the gym,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, health officer for Contra Costa County. “Of course, people in these places can keep wearing masks if that makes them feel more comfortable.” 

Indoor-masking requirements would remain in effect for the time-being in public settings, such as bars, restaurants and retail stores until other targets are met. Masking would also still be
required in indoor K-12 school



. 

 (MEK Note: This totally ignores the reality that vaccinated people can have Covid-19 and pass it on to others. Last time this policy was implemented back in May 2021 by the CDC and White House there was a massive surge in Covid-19 cases two weeks later which was conveniently blamed on the unvaccinated despite the fact that they were still masked and shunned from these vaccinated gatherings! Instigating this policy just at the beginning of the flu season and holidays is dangerous and might cause another surge in Covid-19)

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Coronavirus

COVID – 19

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Contra Costa County, coronavirus, Covid-19, Federal Glover | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

2021-11-01 CCC District V News – CCC Ready to Vaccinate Children Ages 5-11 Once They’re Eligible

District V News & Updates

Contra Costa County Ready to Vaccinate Children Ages 5-11 Once They’re Eligible   Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) has pre-ordered thousands of pediatric doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine as the county prepares for federal and state health officials to expand eligibility to kids ages 5-11.  

CCHS expects to receive about 20,000 doses of the pediatric version of the Pfizer vaccine for county and partner clinics early this week. Other healthcare providers and pharmacies are also stocking up and getting ready.  

CCHS is also working with education and healthcare partners in the region – including John Muir Health, Kaiser, La Clinica and Lifelong Medical – to host vaccine clinics at school sites once eligibility expands to younger kids. We will be announcing more details about school-based vaccine clinics soon.

 “I know a lot of parents have been waiting a long time to be able to get their younger kids vaccinated,” said Diane Burgis, chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. “We’re almost there. If everything goes right, parents will be able to get their children fully vaccinated before the winter holidays.” 

The timing of when the vaccine becomes available to younger children depends on when federal and state officials complete their review process. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday approved the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in children ages 5-11.

This week, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) will be deciding whether to recommend Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine next week for children ages 5-11. The CDC’s recommendation is required before vaccines can be given to this age group. 

If the CDC recommends the vaccine for the younger age group, it may take a couple of days until immunization clinics actually begin administering the pediatric vaccines. The Western States Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, a regional collaborative of scientists from several states including California with expertise in immunization and public health, must also weigh in after the CDC makes it decision.

 Parents should check with their child’s regular healthcare provider or local pharmacies about availability. CCHS expects to begin offering the pediatric vaccine by Nov. 6 at county-run vaccination clinics.  The pediatric COVID-19 vaccine, which is one-third the dosage given to teens and adults, will come in different vials and packaging than the adult version. Like with adults, children ages 5-11 still must get two shots at least three weeks apart to get the maximum protection of the vaccine, which was shown to have a 90.7% efficacy rate in clinical trials among this age group. 

Initial demand for the pediatric vaccine is expected to be high as eager parents seek protection for their children. There are an estimated 92,000 county residents between the ages of 5 and 11. 

Contra Costa County has a high vaccination rate among its eligible residents, including among those ages 12-15, which is currently the youngest age group eligible for COVID-19 vaccination. About 87% of residents ages 12-15 have received at least one dose of vaccine. 

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Coronavirus

COVID – 19

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Children, Contra Costa County, coronavirus, Covid-19, Federal Glover, vaccinations | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2021-10-25 CCC District V News – Moderna, Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Eligible for Boosters

District V News & Updates
Many who Received Moderna, Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Eligible for Boosters
Many Contra Costa residents who received Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine can now consider booster doses for increased protection heading into the holiday season.

After reviewing research, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) have found that booster doses of all available COVID-19 vaccines are not only safe, but significantly improve protection against both infection and serious illness, including from the delta variant.

Fully vaccinated people may also now choose any of the three available COVID-19 vaccines for their booster doses when they are eligible, regardless of the vaccine used during their initial immunization.

“All of the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely effective but, as with most vaccines, the protection they provide reduces over time. That is why getting a booster dose is a healthy choice,” said Dr. Ori Tzvieli, deputy health officer for Contra Costa. “It is also critical for anyone who has not already done so to get vaccinated today. COVID-19 vaccine provides the best protection we have against the virus, including for people who were previously infected.”
Anyone who is 18 or older and received the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine should receive a booster of any of the three available vaccines after at least two months have passed since their initial dose.

As with people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, those who received Moderna vaccine should get a booster dose, according to the CDC, if at least six months have passed since they completed their initial course of vaccination, and they are: 65 or olderResidents of long-term care facilities50 to 64 with underlying medical conditions or who are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to social inequities, including those from communities of color.

People previously vaccinated with Moderna vaccine who may consider receiving a booster, based on their individual benefits and risks, include:
Those who are 18 to 49 with underlying health conditions. Those who are 18 to 64 and are at increased risk of COVID-19 exposure due to their occupation or institutional setting
Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) and its community healthcare partners are prepared to deliver safe, effective, and free COVID-19 booster doses for all eligible residents.

The best place for most Contra Costa residents to seek booster doses is through their own healthcare providers or their local neighborhood pharmacies. COVID-19 vaccine is now plentiful, and CCHS is in regular communication with community healthcare providers, clinics and pharmacies to ensure that all eligible residents can access vaccine.

Beginning Tuesday, CCHS’ free vaccination clinics will also offer booster doses by appointment to anyone who is eligible. Call 1-833-829-2626 to make an appointment, or use our online form at cchealth.org/coronavirus.

So far more than 87% of Contra Costa residents who are 12 or older have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and more than 82% are fully vaccinated.
For information about pharmacies and other providers that offer COVID-19 vaccine to the public, visit our Get Vaccinated page. Most providers will require appointments. 

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

Coronavirus

COVID – 19

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Contra Costa County, coronavirus, Covid-19, Federal Glover | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

United Nations Climate Change Conference

United Nations Climate Change Conference The twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) to the UNFCCC will be hosted by the United Kingdom, in partnership with Italy. The summit will bring parties together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. More than 190 world leaders will participate, along with tens of thousands of negotiators, government representatives, businesses and citizens for twelve days of talks. 31 Oct 2021 – 09:00 to 12 Nov 2021 – 05:00 Glasgow, Scotland

COP26 Goals

1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach Countries are being asked to come forward with ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets that align with reaching net zero by the middle of the century. To deliver on these stretching targets, countries will need to:

  • accelerate the phase-out of coal
  • curtail deforestation
  • speed up the switch to electric vehicles
  • encourage investment in renewables.

2. Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats The climate is already changing and it will continue to change even as we reduce emissions, with devastating effects. At COP26 we need to work together to enable and encourage countries affected by climate change to:

  • protect and restore ecosystems
  • build defences, warning systems and resilient infrastructure and agriculture to avoid loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives

3. Mobilize finance To deliver on our first two goals, developed countries must make good on their promise to mobilize at least $100bn in climate finance per year by 2020.  International financial institutions must play their part and we need work towards unleashing the trillions in private and public sector finance required to secure global net zero.

4. Work together to deliver We can only rise to the challenges of the climate crisis by working together. At COP26 we must:

  • finalise the Paris Rulebook (the detailed rules that make the Paris Agreement operational)
  • accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration between governments, businesses and civil society.

.

United Nations Climate Change Conference History are yearly conferences held in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC parties (Conference of the Parties, COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Starting in 2005 the conferences have also served as the “Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol” (CMP); also parties to the convention that are not parties to the protocol can participate in protocol-related meetings as observers. From 2011 the meetings have also been used to negotiate the Paris Agreement as part of the Durban platform activities until its conclusion in 2015, which created a general path towards climate action.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC) established an international environmental treaty to combat “dangerous human interference with the climate system”, in part by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere It was signed by 154 states at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. It established a Secretariat headquartered in Bonn and entered into force on 21 March 1994. The treaty called for ongoing scientific research and regular meetings, negotiations, and future policy agreements designed to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Climate change Contemporary climate change includes both global warming caused by humans and its impacts on Earth’s weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth’s history. The main cause is the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steel making, cement production, and forest loss are also significant sources. Temperature rise is also affected by climate feedbacks such as the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, and the release of carbon dioxide from drought-stricken forests. Collectively, these amplify global warming.

Greenhouse gas A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F), rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F). The atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse gases.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021. The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago. At current greenhouse gas emission rates, temperatures could increase by 2 °C (3.6 °F), which the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is the upper limit to avoid “dangerous” levels, by 2050.

Vienna Convention

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is a multilateral environmental agreement signed in 1985 that provided frameworks for international reductions in the production of chlorofluorocarbons due to their contribution to the destruction of the ozone layer, resulting in an increased threat of skin cancer.

Montreal Protocol

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, also known simply as the Montreal Protocol, is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol entered into force on 1 January 1989. The Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol have each been ratified by 196 nations and the European Union, making them the first universally ratified treaties in United Nations history.

As a result of the international agreement, the ozone hole in Antarctica is slowly recovering.  Climate projections indicate that the ozone layer will return to 1980 levels between 2050 and 2070. The Montreal Protocol’s success is attributed to its effective burden sharing and solution proposals, which helped mitigate regional conflicts of interest.  

Earth Summit Earth Summit was created as a response for member states to cooperate together internationally on development issues after the Cold War. Due to issues relating to sustainability being too big for individual member states to handle, Earth Summit was held as a platform for other member states to collaborate. Since the creation, many others in the field of sustainability show a similar development to the issues discussed in these conferences, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

An important achievement of the summit was an agreement on the Climate Change Convention which in turn led to the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Another agreement was to “not to carry out any activities on the lands of indigenous peoples that would cause environmental degradation or that would be culturally inappropriate”. The Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signature at the Earth Summit, and made a start towards redefinition of measures that did not inherently encourage destruction of natural ecoregions and so-called uneconomic growth.

Convention on Biological Diversity known informally as the Biodiversity Convention, is a multilateral treaty. The convention has three main goals: the conservation of biological diversity (or biodiversity); the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. Its objective is to develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and it is often seen as the key document regarding sustainable development. The convention was opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and entered into force on 29 December 1993. It has two supplementary agreements, the Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Protocol.

Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (part one) global warming is occurring and (part two) that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There were 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012) to the Protocol in 2020.

Paris Agreement often referred to as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accords, is an international treaty on climate change, adopted in 2015. It covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of October 2021, 192 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the five UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitters are Iran and Iraq. The United States withdrew from the Agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

The Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognizing that this would substantially reduce the impacts of climate change. Emissions should be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by the middle of the 21st century.

.

Climate Change

Climate Change Justice

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Biological Diversity, Climate Change, COP - Conference of Parties, Earth Summit, Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, Paris Agreement, United Nations, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2009-01-00 New York City Foster Children in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials

New York City Foster Children in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials

Findings
Vera’s review of the child welfare files identified 532 New York City foster children who
participated in 88 clinical trials and observational studies between 1985 and 2005. Of the 88
clinical trials and observational studies, 65 involved trials of new medications for HIV or its
associated conditions. Forty-four of the 65 trials involved antiretroviral drugs.
Vera reviewers found little or no evidence in the information examined for some of the concerns
that prompted Children’s Services to initiate this study.

  1. Many children—inside and outside of foster care and clinical trials—died because of
    complications of HIV/AIDS during the late 1980s and 1990s. Eighty of the 532 children who
    participated in clinical trials or observational studies died while in foster care; 25 of them
    died while enrolled in a medication trial. Vera medical staff did not find, however, that any
    child’s death was caused directly by clinical trial medication.
  2. An examination of data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
    though not conclusive, suggests that HIV-positive foster children who were enrolled in
    clinical trials and/or observational research studies did not experience an increased risk of
    death from their enrollment in clinical trials.
  3. The child welfare files contained information indicating that some children experienced
    serious toxicities, or side effects, from trial medications, such as reduced liver function or
    severe anemia. These toxicities were consistent with toxicities described in published articles
    about the trials. Vera reviewers found many instances where a physician made adjustments to
    a child’s treatment in light of these problems as required by the clinical trial protocol.
  4. Where documentation allowed reviewers to make a determination, children in foster care met
    age, HIV status, and disease stage criteria for inclusion in the specific trials in which they
    were enrolled as described in the trial protocol. Reviewers found that two of the 532 children

met exclusion criteria for the medication trials in which they were enrolled.

  1. Of the children who participated in trials, Vera identified two who were HIV exposed, but for
    whom there was evidence suggesting they might not have been infected with HIV. Vera
    project leaders informed Children’s Services about these two cases. Children’s Services
    subsequently responded that inquiries to state and local agencies had confirmed a diagnosis
    that made it appropriate for one of the children to participate in the clinical trial. Children’s
    Services has not provided additional information on the second child, who died of causes
    unrelated to clinical trials participation.
  2. In 1988, when city officials first considered the participation of foster children in clinical
    trials, the child welfare agency conducted a lengthy review of state and federal research
    regulations. The social services commissioner and his staff were aware of concerns about the
    participation of African American and Latino children in medical research and they consulted
    with several medical experts, including the National Medical Association (an organization of
    African American physicians). The standard the agency developed for approving trials—that
    every child in foster care enrolled in a trial have the possibility of benefiting from that trial—
    exceeded that of federal regulations. The policy also required that researchers obtain
    informed consent from a birth parent when parental rights remained intact.
  3. In response to physicians’ and some advocates’ requests for faster trial approvals, the child
    welfare agency changed its policy in 1991. The new policy called for a medical advisory
    panel (MAP) of physicians to review and make a recommendation to the commissioner on enroll in a trial.
  4. Many files document medical researchers’ discussions of the risks and potential benefits of
    trial enrollment with a birth parent and the parent’s subsequent permission to enroll the child.
    In several cases, parents did not want their children in a clinical trial and the child did not
    participate in the trial.
  5. Children in foster care appeared to participate in trials at rates that suggest they were not
    specially targeted for enrollment into HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Foster children made up 30
    percent of all New York City enrollments in 16 trials of medical interventions for which citylevel data were available. Thirteen percent of these enrollments occurred prior to the child’s
    entry into foster care, with participation extending into the period they were in foster care.
  6. Children in foster care who participated in HIV/AIDS clinical trials were predominantly
    African American and Latino (64 percent African American and 30 percent Latino). This
    demographic profile paralleled the demographics of children with HIV infection in New
    York City (58 percent African American, 35 percent Latino).
  7. There was no evidence in the child welfare files of children being removed from their
    families by Children’s Services because a parent refused to consent to a child’s participation
    in a clinical trial. Three-quarters of the children entered foster care before age one year and
    more than half entered directly from a hospital after birth. Families faced many issues such as
    substance use, unemployment, and poverty that were exacerbated by the medical needs of
    children and parents with HIV/AIDS.
  8. Several files documented differences of opinion between child welfare staff and both birth
    and foster parents concerning antiretroviral medications prescribed outside of clinical trials
    and after the approval of the medication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
    These differences were resolved on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes this involved continued
    monitoring and alternative treatments; in other cases it resulted in removal from parents or
    legal guardians or the transfer of a child to a new foster home.
  9. Vera reviewers found no evidence in the child welfare files, clinical trial protocols, or
    interviews that children, parents, foster parents, foster care agencies or staff, or child welfare
    agencies or staff received incentive payments for children to participate in clinical trials.
    Vera’s study of this issue was limited to information in child welfare, policy files, and public
    information from the NIH on the funding of their clinical trials.

The Vera review also found evidence that supported some concerns about the participation of
foster children and their families in clinical trials. This evidence includes violations of state
regulations, Children’s Services’ own policies for clinical trial review and enrollment, and
federal regulations for protecting human subjects. (see Report)

Recommendations


There is a continuum of situations in which children might be considered for clinical trials. Each
point on this continuum contains a different set of risks and potential benefits. For children in
foster care there are additional concerns. These include the effect enrollment in a trial will have
on placement stability and how close a child is to entering a permanent home where adoptive
parents can assume decision-making responsibility.
Some people feel that child welfare agencies should not allow children in foster care to
participate in any clinical trials. In support of their position, they often cite the history of medical
research involving African American and Latinos and the vulnerability of foster children. Others
feel that children in foster care, including African American and Latino children, should have the
same chance to participate in the development of new treatments as other children and that they
should not be denied access to a promising new medication because they are no longer in their
parents’ care. It is not the Vera Institute’s role to take a position in this debate: elected and
appointed officials, in consultation with community and professional representatives, are charged
with making clinical trials policy for foster children.
The knowledge gathered in this study does, however, provide a basis for Vera and its Clinical
Trials Advisory Board to make recommendations for those policymakers who do decide to allow
foster children to participate in clinical trials. The recommendations presented here are aimed, in
part, at remedying the problems that this report identifies. Children’s Services has developed a
new clinical trials policy. The recommendations below can be seen as a set of benchmarks that
child welfare staff, elected representatives, and community advocates can use to measure
progress in addressing the concerns this report raises. (see Report for more details)

.

Aids – HIV

Children

Children Healthcare

.

Coronavirus Covid-19 Research History – Index

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in Aids, Children | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Redistricting 2021

Redistricting 2021

All United States Representatives and state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. The states redraw district lines every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government requires that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Background: This section summarizes federal and state-level requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. It also includes information about gerrymandering and recent court decisions impacting redistricting processes.

Who’s in charge of redistricting?: This section identifies what branch of government or type of organization has final authority over redistricting in each state.

Redistricting and electoral competitiveness: This section summarizes arguments and data about the effect of redistricting on electoral competitiveness.

Majority-minority districts: This section summarizes the legal basis for the creation of majority-minority districts and arguments about the practice.

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that “the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.” According to All About Redistricting, “it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart.”

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

  1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
  2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
  3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a “group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests.” A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
  4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state’s redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:[9]

  1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission’s recommendations.
  2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
  3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district’s populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation. Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

.

Specific Issues Index

from Creating Better World

Posted in 2022 elections, elections, electoral reform, gerrymandering, redistricting | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

OPEN LETTER to Beale AFB Commander Heather Fox

OPEN LETTER to Beale AFB Commander Heather Fox


October 26, 2021
Dear Col. Heather Fox,


Likely you know that on August 29 of this year 10 members of the Afghan Ahmadi
family were recklessly killed in Kabul by a U.S. drone strike. Seven of the victims were
young children, including 3 toddler girls. The drone missile struck the vehicle of
Zamarai Ahmadi, age 40, as he arrived home from his work as an aide worker with an
American NGO that provides food for refugees in Afghanistan. In his vehicle were the
containers of drinking water that he picked up earlier that day to bring to his family’s
home, a home without potable water. Upon arrival, the children of his extended family
ran to the vehicle to greet them, as they usually do. Within seconds, the strike of the
lethal hellfire missile left its mark:


“Said Zamarai’s cousin: ‘Our children were in such a state that we tried to identify them
from their hands, ears or nose. None of them had their hands or feet intact in one place.
They were all in pieces.” Charred body parts, pieces of skull with chunks of hair, and a
foot melted into a sandal were among the remains taken to the morgue that day… “ [CNN
Report: “They wanted a new life in America. Instead they were killed by the US
military,” Sept. 14, 2021
]


It was a horrific scene, as are all drone strikes. The Pentagon claimed with certainty
that they killed an ISIS affiliate/potential suicide bomber. Mark Milley, the Chairperson
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called it “a righteous strike.” The truth was finally revealed
due to excellent investigative journalism by CNN, New York Times, and others: All
were Afghan civilians, 7 young children. Military officials finally owned up to their
reckless error. Or was it an error? Does the US feel they have the right to murder
people in other countries on suspicion alone, without trial, or jury? Is this an
exceptional mistake or common practice?


The more significant truth is that the vast majority killed by U.S. drone strikes are not
the intended target, and indeed, most are civilians. This truth was exposed by military
documents leaked by Daniel Hale, former intelligence analyst turned drone
whistleblower, in THE DRONE PAPERS, published online by The Intercept in 2015.
Daniel Hale acted out of conscience and took enormous risks to educate the public and
expose the wrongfulness of the U.S. drone program. For this heroic act, he is serving 45
months in a maximum security prison. https://standwithdanielhale.org/


Today we are at Beale AFB as part of a national call to action this month to demand
justice for the Ahmadi family, and justice for Daniel Hale. Our demands are attached to
this letter. We are part of a new network, Ban Killer Drones, united to oppose drone
attacks and working collectively toward an international ban on armed and
surveillance drones at home and abroad.


Col. Fox, and Beale personnel, how would you feel if a foreign country fired a drone
into your home, killing members, young and old, of your beloved family? How would
your neighbors feel while picking up the unrecognizable and charred body parts of
loved ones after a strike on their homes, fired from a drone controlled remotely from
far away lands. How would it terrorize your community? Do you really think this can
be justified for us to do this to others? Where is our humanity as a country? This is not
making us more safe, but rather, continues to create more enemies, making us less safe.


We urge you Col. Fox to do everything you can to seek justice for the Ahmadi Family.
Help us put an end to this criminal and inhumane program that Beale AFB helps to
sustain. Please look over our demands below, and support us. Otherwise, as top
commander, you are ultimately responsible for the crimes committed here, and should
be prosecuted under the full extend of national and international laws. Assassination is
illegal. Drone killing is an inherently criminal and racist program.


Ban Killer Drones Demands:

  1. An official apology by President Biden, as commander in chief of the U.S. military, to the
    Ahmadi family for the deaths of their family members.
  2. $3 million (minimum) compensation payment for each of the 10 Ahmadi family
    members. (Comparable to nearly $3 million paid to the family of an Italian, Giovanni Lo Porto,
    mistakenly killed by the CIA in a 2015 U.S. drone attack on an al Qaeda compound in Pakistan.)
  3. An immediate report from the Department of Defense on who in the chain of command
    was responsible for the drone attack on the Ahmadis. This includes the release of all
    communications and logs related to the attack from the White House down to the operator
    who pressed the button to launch the attack, and a report on whether and what charges are to
    be brought against those responsible for the killings.
  4. That the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress:
    1) Investigate all U.S. drone attacks since 2001 pursuant to identifying all civilian and
    non-combatant victims; 2) oversee the disbursement of reparations to their families; 3)
    receive petitions and claims of victims of U.S. drone attacks and take actions as
    required to satisfy these petitions and claims; 4) seek the appropriation of sufficient
    funds to compensate families of non-combatant drone attack victims at the level of $3
    million for each victim; and 5) provide compensation to communities that have
    suffered U.S. drone attacks.
  5. An immediate halt to all U.S. drone attacks and an end to U.S. plans and taxpayer support
    for weaponizing drones of all types.

We also demand an immediate pardon of Daniel Hale. Learn his story. PLEASE WATCH:
YouTube: In Memoriam Victims of US Drone Strike In Kabul, Afghanistan August 29, 2021

.

Drone Assassination Program

.

Specific Issues Index

.

from Creating Better World

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment