COVID, Our Food Supply, Vaccine Development, and those Gosh Darn Civil Liberties

Dear Family,

“If we’re essential, we need help, because we’re the people feeding the country.”

—Eugenia Gonzales
Farmworker in central California, risking the coronavirus to feed U.S. residents


In terms of a thoughtful and timeless analysis of the Pandemic Situation, Eisenstein’s essay continues to be the most complete and relevant .

Meanwhile, lots of other useful and fascinating perspectives:

How a pandemic almost stopped the push to secure women’s right to vote in the USA. This is a notable reminder of the need to currently maintain vigilance concerning our civil liberties and our desire to attain or retain the ability to vote in November:

Factory “farms” are (unsurprisingly) pandemic breeding grounds:

Are we underestimating how many people are getting COVID? Sweden thinks so:

COVID deaths compared with other high-deaths-from-sickness years:

Questioning vaccination may become a criminal activity in some places:

Are glyphosate and COVID-19 connected? Glyphosate - specifically the vaporized residue of it in the auto exhaust hanging over many US and European cities - is one of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the world. It may be a key to why some people get severely ill from COVID-19, an MIT senior research scientist reports:

Why ventilators may be causing more harm than good in many COVID cases: and


I have been appreciating many of the more nuanced articles I’ve read lately, like the one concerning glyphosate, above. Below is a letter from an Ontario farmer, offering a perspective on our food supply and processing systems:

I am starting to see more news articles questioning whether our food supply lines are stable, and thought I should give you my perspective, and update you on our product availability going forward.

The official stance so far has been that our food supply lines are robust, but with more meat processing lines going down due to Covid-19 outbreaks among employees, and fruit and vegetable farmers not sure if they want to plant this year, due to not being certain they can get migrant workers for the harvest, I'm not so sure.

There were some news articles showing milk being dumped due to processing issues, but what hasn't made the news is the whispers in the countryside of over a million chickens being gassed due to slowdowns in the processing plants, and the pork producers are desperately trying to find plants that will take their pigs or they will have to start gassing them too. Cattle are a little more forgiving if they can't get harvested on time, but processing for them is down by over 25,000 head a week too, and about to get worse.

In my mind we can't have this bottleneck in processing and not run into problems down the road. There may be enough product in the pipeline to keep shelves stocked for awhile, but eventually the pipeline runs empty if it isn't being filled at the other end.

This is the great vulnerability of centralized processing. It is very efficient when it works, but leaves you with nothing when it doesn't. Maybe the powers that be will realize spending the last 30 years choking out all the small Mom & Pa operations with excessive regulations was not such a good idea. We could sure use them now!

We are struggling to keep product available for you. We are always low in product this time of year, after coming through the winter, but this year the extra demand has magnified the problem. May is going to be our lowest month, but with the grass coming, and having sourced extra animals for this summer, things should turn around in June.

So if processing plants keep shutting down, the timing should be such that we start having more product available as store shelves start to get lean.


I (Sarabeth) am nearly always frustrated by Youtube videos and podcasts concerning Health. Occasionally they are spectacularly useful and interesting; much more often, they take sooooooo much time and don’t offer much. I suspected that an interview with Robert Kennedy would be worth it, and it was; I made it my goal to transcribe and condense this talk that was part of today’s lineup at the online “Health Freedom Summit.” You’re welcome! I saved you a loooong listening experience in favor of a nice long novel. ;)

Kennedy is one of the rare, questioningly scientific voices in politics and law who offers his bi-partisan analysis and questioning to the subject of Vaccination. Here, he discusses the COVID quarantines, COVID vaccine development, and why or why not the lockdowns are a threat to our civil liberties. His words are careful and reasoned, and they were worth the time spent listening.

I hope you get some useful information from the following transcription; the words following my signature are those of Robert F. Kennedy.


(Note: vaccine development, safety testing, and adverse reaction reporting in the USA is a highly contentious and secretive affair. Almost all cases relating to vaccine injury are processed by a separate court system, with no jury present. This court expressly provides “no fault” liability to pharmaceutical companies who develop and manufacture vaccines, as per the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The burden of proof for vaccine injury lies in general with individuals; therefore, it is very hard to provide data from mainstream medical authorities, since they do not produce it. I have tried to link to helpful reference articles below (within the text); if you have useful resources to share (no video lectures, please!), either supporting or disputing the ideas expressed by RFK, I would welcome them.)


Transcription of interview with RFK:

We need to make sure we don’t kill more people with this quarantine than the virus is killing. There are a lot of old studies that show that a single point of unemployment costs 40,000 lives in our country. Isolation kills people, and that’s very well documented. We’re seeing crops languishing and rotting in the fields, and we’re going to see disruptions in the supply chain for pharmaceuticals.

People keep saying, “We need to listen to the scientists!” But scientists aren’t always good policy makers. We DO need to listen to the scientists, and more particularly we need to be reading and understanding the science. But we also need to be making independent decisions that add in other elements of risk to public policy. A lot of times, scientists who are narrowly focused on virology or immunology are not going to give us those answers.

My initial understanding of the quarantine, and this I think is the plan that was sold to the American people, is that we would quarantine in order to “dampen the curve” - give the hospitals and the health care system a bit of time to ramp up so they wouldn’t be overwhelmed by a surge of COVID cases with insufficient equipment. We’d give them a chance to get masks, ventilators, test kits, and beds - to have some therapies available, to develop these kinds of protocols. And at that point we’d end the quarantine, and allow the disease to spread and provide herd immunity. At that stage, of course, we would protect people who are vulnerable, those populations of elderly and immunocompromised people, until such time as widespread herd immunity would better protect them. And to me, that was a plan that seemed rational and prudent.

Now we seem to have a kind of mission drift, which has brought us closer and closer to the paradigm I would call “The Scheme,” which has been championed by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, and which is essentially this: we all stay locked in place for 18 months until we get a vaccine. There are a lot of problems with that plan, which is why in the end the quarantine is almost certainly going to be killing more people than the disease, and devastating generations of Americans through its economic impact, and there is no guarantee that a vaccine will ever be successfully developed for COVID.

There are a number of reasons for this.

The Chinese government, European nations, and the United states have spent the last thirty years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to develop a coronavirus vaccine, and they’ve all failed.

During 2002-2004, we had three SARS epidemics. And there was an effort to collaborate between all these nations, who contributed a lot of money, which was primarily led by the NIH (including Tony Fauci), where they developed about thirty different potential vaccine models. The four most promising models were chosen (one was a spike protein model; the others were RNA vaccines), and these were the best of the best. And when they gave these vaccines to ferrets (they tried an animal model first, which of course is prudent, and they used ferrets which are the closest analogy to humans when it comes to lung/viral infections), the ferrets all developed an admirable and very durable antibody response - which is the metric that regulators like FDA use to license a vaccine: does the vaccine create antibodies in your system that will presumably protect you against a future exposure to the virus?

Vaccines are never tested in the field. In other words, they DON’T give fifteen thousand people the vaccine, and give fifteen thousand people in a similar situation an inert placebo vaccine, and then have them go out into society with regular exposure to diseases, and observe what happens. This has never been done. The way that vaccines get licensed is that if they produce an antibody reaction, they’re generally gonna get a license.

So, these ferrets developed an antibody response, and then the researchers said, “We hit the jackpot!” Then something very disturbing happened. When these ferrets were exposed to a wild virus after being vaccinated, instead of protecting them, the vaccine actually killed them. The antibodies they developed were a type called “binding antibodies” (the sort you want from a vaccine are called neutralizing antibodies). So the vaccines actually made antibodies that caused the ferrets to be MORE susceptible to the disease. They got body-wide inflammation after viral exposure, in virtually all their organs, an autoimmune reaction particularly in their lungs, and then they died.

Back in the 1960s, there was an experimental vaccine for RSV, which is an upper respiratory disease that is very similar to coronavirus. In that case, they went right to human trials, and tried the vaccine out on about 35 children. The children developed a very admirable, robust immune response, and those researchers thought similarly that they’d hit the jackpot. But in that case, when the children were exposed to the wild virus, they became sick and two of the kids died. The vaccine was abandoned and people have been jittery about coronavirus vaccines ever since.

When that Situation with the ferrets happened in 2012, researchers all said, “Oh, this is MUCH harder than we thought, and we do not know how to make one of these vaccines.”

So today, there are at least 40 and maybe 70 companies working on a variety of different new coronavirus vaccines, but the problem is that they are ALL being allowed to rush those vaccines to market. They are being allowed to do things - even with Tony Fauci’s Moderna vaccine - such as skip animal testing. Which, knowing what Fauci knows, this seems like almost criminal negligence. Because of course, the people who get these vaccines are going to look like they are now immunized - but until they are exposed to the wild virus, we won’t know whether they really have immunity, or whether they have developed binding antibodies or other problems and the vaccine ends up hurting or even killing them.

Two other difficulties with developing coronavirus vaccines: COVID 19 appears to mutate with extraordinary rapidity. Some researchers last week did a study on patients in a Wuhan hospital, and they found that there were 30 different strains of coronavirus within those patients. []. If a coronavirus vaccine is anything like a flu vaccine, it may only protect a person against a single strain. In that way, a vaccine would do very little to protect you against another mutating strain. And in some ways it might have the potential to make the virus even more lethal, because the most common strains are usually the less virulent ones, and if you’re protecting against the less virulent ones, you may be MORE vulnerable to the virulent strains because you don’t have natural antibodies.

And so we don’t know if it will ever work, to have a vaccine to protect you from thousands of strains of the coronavirus.

The other disturbing thing is that the WHO last week announced and acknowledged that they are seeing re-infection rates that are astonishingly high. That means some number of people have had the virus, have the antibodies, and are getting re-infected. If this is a real phenomenon, which WHO says it is, then that casts doubt on the supposition that a vaccine will work at all. If natural antibodies can’t even protect you, then the vaccine antibodies are highly unlikely to protect you either.

So the strategy of waiting for a vaccine is a bad one, and isn’t prudent. What we need to be doing - and what the initial plan was - is to continue figuring out therapies that can lessen the impact on infected people, and focus on carefully exposing society so that we’re infecting everybody, so that to the extent we can get herd immunity, we will - of course while protecting the elderly and immunocompromised in the process.


The danger of turning the pharmaceutical companies loose on vaccine development without really strict testing protocols is that those companies are immune from liability: you cannot sue them [by federal law], so there is NO incentive for a company to make a safe product. So naturally, when it comes to safety, they are going to take shortcuts because they’re in a rush. They’re going to do things like they’re doing with Fauci’s vaccine, and skip the animal model and go right to human testing. It’s very expensive to do animal testing. If you’re testing a primate model, the primates may cost $20,000 apiece, and it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do even ferret or rat or mice studies. And we already see that they’re taking other shortcuts. We know that the vaccine that’s being developed at Oxford has no placebo. That allows the pharmaceutical company developing the vaccine to avoid reporting injuries: if you don’t have a placebo, you don’t know what injuries are caused by the vaccine and which injuries are just coincidental bad luck. The only way you know that is to use a placebo and be required to report study results.

In the case of developing the Gardasil vaccine, there were a lot of suicides and accidental deaths reported, and those kinds of things are very easily dismissed as being unrelated to the vaccine. Even things like seizures or other injuries - companies can easily say, “Well, he would have gotten that seizure anyway.” In many cases there will be consistently high suicide rates in a study, and these things must be looked at because there may be things in the vaccine that cause seizures or depression; people who are suffering from seizures and depression get into more car accidents, and they have higher rates of accidental deaths and commit suicide more frequently.

The only way you can make those associations is if you’re doing a _true_ placebo test, and those are never done with vaccines. It gives the industry a lot of opportunity to cheat, if they are so inclined, and as we know from the opioid epidemic and many, many other examples, they ARE inclined to cheat.


Bill Gates has financial interest in the whole vaccine paradigm. He owns vaccine manufacture plants, and The Nation did an expose on his investment strategy and how it is intertwined with his philanthropy - not only his personal investments but the investments of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. He has big investments in Monsanto, in GMOs and chemical fertilizers, and his charities tend to promote GMOs as an antidote to the food crisis globally. He has big investments in 5g, and his charities tend to say that 5g is going to help human beings. And he has big investments in vaccines, and his philanthropy is very aggressive about promoting vaccines. Politico wrote about him: “Some billionaires buy an island; Bill gates bought an international health agency” - which is the WHO.

Bill Gates [is now the biggest contributor, unless Trump reinstates funding] to the WHO, and that money allows Gates to dictate their policies. I believe Gates is probably well-meaning in the end, but he has an almost messianic or megalomaniacal view not only of technology and its capacity to “save humanity,” but about his key role in that process. That’s probably been fortified by his own experience with Microsoft and computer technologies. And he seems like he believes that he, and he alone, has the experience to be the salvation of mankind by delivering technologies that will change people’s lives.

He’s a template for what statisticians call confirmation bias. That means the inclination for human beings to look at information that will tend to support their worldview, and to ignore information that tends to challenge it. Gates has this view that good health only comes in a syringe, and a really, really strong belief in germ theory, which says that a few germs cause most of if not all human problems. Rather than strengthening the immune system, by providing clean water and good nutrition and good development and expanding the distribution of wealth - which was the traditional focus of the WHO, and is something that’s really, really difficult to do in poor and remote areas - Gates just kind of brushed all those things off the table and said, “We don’t need to do all that for people, we just need to vaccinate them, and then we’ll end the disease problem! We’ll not only protect the Africans, but we’ll protect Americans from diseases that would otherwise be spread by the Africans…”

And the Africans and the Indians under that paradigm have become kind of guinea pigs for Gates’ experimentation. One of those experiments was his polio vaccine “eradication program,” which has been an utter failure. He has diverted almost half of the WHO’s total expenditures to the polio vaccine, and in the process, instead of eradicating polio, he’s caused vaccine-strain epidemics all over the world. The WHO acknowledges now that seventy percent of polio on earth today comes from Gates’ vaccines.

He has another vaccine called the DTP (Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis), and it’s given to essentially every child in Africa. It’s the most popular vaccine, and it’s the one that the WHO and Gates and his other organizations use to gauge national compliance with the WHO vaccination program. So if a nation does not hit its metrics - WHO’s particular goals of forcing a certain number of people to take that vaccine - WHO can withdraw money that is vital for HIV protection, or to run the health departments in that country which are pretty much a hundred percent provided by WHO. So WHO says: You gotta vaccinate all the kids with DTP or you’re not gonna get the money.

Nobody has ever studied whether DTP actually works. In other words: we know that it probably prevents or at least reduces symptoms of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis - but is it actually making people lead longer and healthier lives? A group of scientists from the Scandinavian government, also sponsored by a big vaccine company based in Denmark and some other funders, decided to actually fund such a study. They found that in one West African nation, there was a natural experiment going on already: about half the children between two months and five months of age were vaccinated, and half were not. And they said, Well, this is a perfect experiment because we can study the health outcomes of both groups. And what they found is that among little girls who were vaccinated, they were ten times more likely to die in the next two months than the girls who were not.

This was an extraordinary study, very highly respected; other aspects of this study have been reported on by the NY Times as reliable data, and these are number-one vaccine experts concerning Africa. Everyone on this team was pro-vaccine, and they were shocked by what they found. They begged the WHO to reevaluate the DTP - and the WHO under Gates refused.

We now know that vaccines may be killing millions of children, and Gates has refused to look at that. And that’s why I say, I don’t think he’s _trying_ to kill those children, but he is blinded by confirmation bias. And that’s what we all need to watch out for.

Meanwhile, Gates has talked about and made multiple investments in technologies to put computer chips in humans, and Microsoft now has an injectable chip (and Gates has private investments in other companies that do subdermal biometric tattoos). These can be scanned with a little infrared device by a health authority, or the police - and these authorities would be able to read your health records as a bar code.

Gates may be well-meaning, but I don’t think he has a good understanding of civics, American democracy, or the importance of individual liberties and freedom. It is something that is anathema in this country: to give the government the power to track and tag us.

This past weekend, the Malibu police were handing out $1000 tickets to surfers for breaking the quarantine, while meanwhile LA hospitals are empty. There hasn’t been a single Divert Order - which is what they were telling us was going to happen, that the hospitals were going to fill up and have to divert patients to other hospitals. So to have the police ticketing people when they’re out playing in the sunshine, which you’re supposed to do in order to protect against coronavirus, since 80% of people are vitamin D deficient…doesn’t seem like the endgame we are hoping for.

What kind of world do we want to head towards? Do we want a world where Microsoft can follow us everywhere, where the police could remotely follow our biometrics, know that we’ve entered a public beach, and take $1000 out of our electronic payroll check to fine us for disobeying?

If we don’t want such random tyranny, we need to put our foot down and say, “We do NOT want to live this way.” A recent peer-reviewed study reported that on average, about 13% of people actually do critical thinking and examine the big picture. Most of us are quite preoccupied with our daily lives, and it’s very easy for authorities, the pharmaceutical companies, to take advantage of that, to say, “There’s a measles outbreak! We need to get everyone vaccinated! There’s a COVID outbreak! Stay in your homes!” People will generally do what they’re told. There are a certain number of people in society at any given time who will think things through and ask questions and think independently of what a government or an authority tells them. In certain crises and transition periods in history, that group has expanded enormously. That’s what we need to do now. We need to expand that group so that EVERYONE is thinking critically and asking questions. We need an army to weaponize information, so that people know how to take action, and are talking to other people, and know what’s going on.

Benjamin Franklin has a great quote which is, “Those who would give up an essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety - and they will lose both.” The idea that if you do what you’re told, you’re going to be safe, is just not true. You need to be fighting for your liberty every single day. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be good citizens, and if it makes sense, quarantine - if authorities have the respect to explain to us what the outcome should be, and which metrics will qualify the endgame…but in this case that hasn’t been done. We’re giving a lot of power away to people who have not ever demonstrated their reliability in either protecting public health or protecting civil liberties.