Connect with us

International

Mobile device location data is already used by private companies, so why not for studying human-wildlife interactions, scientists ask

When did you last go anywhere without your cell phone? From maps and weather apps to social media platforms, we give consent for our phones to trace our…

Published

on

When did you last go anywhere without your cell phone? From maps and weather apps to social media platforms, we give consent for our phones to trace our footsteps and behavior. These curated mobility data are often used for personalized advertisements. In a commentary, published April 26 in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability, scientists argue mobility data can offer so much more—it is key to understanding human-wildlife interactions for guiding policy decisions on sustainability-related issues and should be free and accessible for research. 

Credit: Matthias Loretto

When did you last go anywhere without your cell phone? From maps and weather apps to social media platforms, we give consent for our phones to trace our footsteps and behavior. These curated mobility data are often used for personalized advertisements. In a commentary, published April 26 in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability, scientists argue mobility data can offer so much more—it is key to understanding human-wildlife interactions for guiding policy decisions on sustainability-related issues and should be free and accessible for research. 

As the COVID-19 pandemic confined humans indoors and hushed bustling cities, reports of wildlife wandering the streets flooded the internet. To ecologists and sustainability researchers, this was a unique opportunity to understand human-wildlife interactions, afforded by the most tragic of circumstances. Scientists, including some of the authors of the commentary, quickly joined hands to form the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative.

“Our global consortium has been investigating wildlife responses to sudden reductions in human mobility during pandemic lockdowns, using tracking data from animal-attached devices,” says senior author Christian Rutz, of University of St Andrews, UK, who is the chair of the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative. “Such analyses of human-wildlife interactions would benefit tremendously from improved access to human-mobility data.”

“What we very quickly realized is that we had a wealth of data on what animals were doing, but gaining access to data on what humans were doing was a major challenge,” says first author Ruth Oliver of the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Generally, human-mobility data are held by private companies and sold for corporate interests. There are financial and logistical barriers for researchers to access the data to understand sustainability challenges.”

To address this issue, the authors propose that governments and international organizations work together with companies on finding ways to make human-mobility data freely available for research. Drawing on lessons learned from the precedent of government-facilitated access to satellite remote sensing data for public good, the researchers believe human-mobility data hold similar potential, if access barriers were addressed.

Unlike human-mobility data for commercial purposes, which comprise detailed time-stamped movement trajectories of individual users, potentially posing privacy concerns when shared, what the researchers call for is much simpler. The researchers envision aggregated datasets, stripped of personal identifiers, counting the number of devices in an area over a defined time period. About three out of every four people aged 10 or older—roughly 5.9 billion individuals globally—own a cellular phone. This wealth of data can help address how the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are connected. For example, analyses could help pinpoint hotspots where wildlife and humans interact frequently, informing zoonotic disease prevention and invasive species management.

“Because the aggregated datasets we’re advocating for are very different from what’s needed for commercial applications, making them accessible to researchers wouldn’t harm the market for more detailed data,” says Oliver.

In fact, Oliver and her colleagues say that making human-mobility data available to researchers can also benefit private companies. Sharing aggregated data may generate further demand for bespoke, detailed data products and grow the global user base. With movements towards corporate digital responsibility, sharing data for conservation and sustainability research can also be a way to mitigate impact and contribute to societal good. 

“Our vision is to have this movement be a community-driven, collaborative effort. We want to understand the companies’ concerns and collaborate on finding win-win solutions. Because privacy policies around human mobility-data vary around the world, government bodies’ facilitation will be crucial,” says Oliver. “More broadly, we feel it’s crucial to empower individuals to think about how they want their data used.”

###

This work was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, NASA FINESST, the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies, the National Biodiversity Future Center via the PNRR funds of the Italian Ministry of University and Research, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Cell Reports Sustainability, Oliver et al. “Access to human-mobility data is essential for building a sustainable future” https://cell.com/cell-reports-sustainability/fulltext/S2949-7906(24)00105-8

Cell Reports Sustainability (@CellRepSustain), published by Cell Press, is a monthly gold open access journal that publishes high-quality research and discussion that contribute to understanding and responding to environmental, social-ecological, technological, and energy- and health-related challenges. Visit https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-sustainability/home. To receive Cell Press media alerts, contact press@cell.com.


Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Excess Deaths In Japan Hit 115,000 Following 3rd COVID Shot; New Study Explains Why

Excess Deaths In Japan Hit 115,000 Following 3rd COVID Shot; New Study Explains Why

Authored by Joe Wang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

on

Excess Deaths In Japan Hit 115,000 Following 3rd COVID Shot; New Study Explains Why

Authored by Joe Wang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new study on harms resulting from the COVID vaccine was published on April 8 in the U.S.-based peer-reviewed medical science journal Cureus. It represents the largest study to date on adverse effects of the COVID vaccine, and the results are shocking, to put it mildly.

In the study, titled “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan,” five Japanese scientists used an entire dataset of the country’s 123 million population (Japan has the highest vaccination rate in the world) to study excess cancer mortalities coinciding with mass COVID vaccination.

The authors also provide a sound explanation as to why these deaths occurred after the mRNA injection.

As a former vaccine researcher, I read the Cureus article with great interest. My fellow Epoch Times columnist, Megan Redshaw, has written an excellent article on this study. Here, I would like to highlight some points that I think are worth reiterating.

Excess Deaths Following the Third Shot

The study shows there were 1,568,961 total deaths in Japan in 2022. About 1,453,162 deaths were expected based on statistical predictions using pre-pandemic information, which means there were 115,799 excess deaths in 2022.

The 115,799 “age-adjusted excess number of deaths” in 2022 occurred after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third dose of COVID vaccine.

Based on Japan’s Ministry of Health data, I calculated that there were 39,060 COVID deaths reported in 2022. So, the majority of Japan’s excess deaths in 2022 were not caused by COVID infection, but rather are strongly associated with the vaccination.

Harm Done by the Vaccine, Not the Virus

The study shows that in 2020, after COVID-19 began to spread in Japan but before vaccination was available, the age-adjusted number of deaths was 28,000 fewer than what was predicted. And in 2021, as the virus continued and there was limited COVID-19 vaccination (it started in February), there were 25,000 more deaths than what was predicted.

Based on the number of excess deaths in 2022, the Japanese scientists concluded: “Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine.”

“These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown,” the authors wrote.

In plain English, this study revealed the mRNA COVID jab is likely the cause of the extra deaths that occurred in Japan.

6 Types of Cancer Had Significant Excess Deaths

The study presented the numbers for all-cause death, but also looked into the details of deaths caused by cancer. It found that of the 20 types of cancer, six of them—ovarian, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancer—had statistically significant excess mortalities in 2021 and increased further in 2022.

The significant increase in mortalities for the six specific cancer types cannot be blamed on a shortage of health-care services during the pandemic. Reduced cancer screening and health care due to lockdowns should increase deaths for all cancers. However, such an increase was not observed in other types of cancers in Japan in 2022.

So what is so special about the six specific cancer types? They are all known as estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-sensitive cancers.

The scientists explained why these cancers not only occurred after vaccination, but also killed people in a short period of time after they received the shot.

Cancer After the Jab: A Scientific Explanation

I worked as a research scientist at Sanofi Pasteur, one of the world’s largest vaccine companies, for more than 10 years. As the person who spearheaded Sanofi’s SARS-CoV-1 vaccine development in 2003, I personally found the hypothesis presented by the Japanese scientists very reasonable.

Please bear with me on the scientific terms, because they are important in understanding the possible roles the mRNA vaccine may have played in cancer development.

ERs (estrogen receptors) are a group of proteins found inside cells. They are receptors that can be activated by the sex hormone estrogen. ERα is one of the two classes of ERs, an important regulator in the body’s reproductive system.

Research published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances in November 2022 screened 9,000 human proteins to see which protein binds better with the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2, and found the S protein specifically binds to ERα. The binding “upregulates the transcriptional activity of ERα.”

In other words, the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 (from infection or vaccination), when introduced into the human body, binds to ERα and functions as a nuclear receptor coregulator, interfering with the cell’s normal function and leading to malfunction of the cells and organs.

This may explain why death caused by the six types of ERα-sensitive cancers increased in 2022 in Japan after two-thirds of the population received the third dose of the mRNA vaccine.

The vaccine carries the S gene of SARS-CoV-2, hijacking the host cells to produce S proteins. The S proteins produce inside the cell, then bind to ERα, disrupting the cell’s normal function and leading to cancer development.

Cancer is a disease in which some of the body’s cells grow uncontrollably and spread to other parts of the body.

For any healthy person, some cells die, some age, and some become cancerous. All this happens without the person knowing it because the body’s immune system is constantly working to deal with such problems. However, if the immune system is compromised, illness then develops, including cancer.

Plenty of evidence has started to emerge showing that the COVID-19 vaccine has the potential to severely interfere with the human body’s immune system. This new Japanese study provides further evidence of the extent of this phenomenon.

Vaccination and Suppression of Cancer Immunosurveillance

It has been shown the mRNA vaccine not only has the potential to cause cancer, it may also weaken the immune systems’ ability to recognize and repress cancerous tumours.

In a study published last October, Konstantin Fohse and colleagues reported vaccination with BNT162b2 modulated innate immune responses, resulting in a weakened cancer immunosurveillance.

The damage caused by COVID vaccines would have been less if the vaccination wasn’t as widespread, and the dosage of the vaccines were not as high due to boosters.

The Japanese scientists found that for each Pfizer-BioNTech dose, there are about 13 trillion SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP molecules. For Moderna, the number is 40 trillion. Since the average human body has about 37.2 trillion cells, one COVID-19 mRNA-LNP dose would have enough molecules to spread into each and every human cell.

As I wrote previously, contrary to what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s claim that “after the body produces an immune response, it discards all of the vaccine ingredients” because uridines in normal RNA are now replaced with pseudo-uridines in this COVID-19 mRNA-LNP, we know the modified RNA now lives in the body for months and can even find its way into babies through breast milk.

The Japanese study was written before October 2023 using information from 2022 and earlier. As COVID vaccination continues in many countries, it is scary to think how many people may die or develop cancer if the 2022 trend continues.

Uncertain Future

As authorities across the world still claim that the COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective” and continue pushing vaccination, it is uncertain what the future holds.

This is because the COVID-19 mRNA-LNP molecules already in the bodies of hundreds of millions of people will remain there and continue producing the S protein, interfering with the immune system and causing cancer and other diseases.

Studies like the one by the Japanese scientists should have been undertaken in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the UK and published in top medical journals without censorship so that we can learn from mistakes and prevent the mistakes from happening again. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

However, hopefully more and more scientists and researchers will be brave enough to point out the very obvious: that the COVID-19 vaccine is not safe.

It is worth noting that the Cureus medical journal was recently acquired by the Springer Nature Group in December 2022. The group also owns renowned scientific publications such as Nature and Nature Medicine.

COVID vaccine injury has been a taboo subject for scientists and medical journals. Many people were cancelled when they tried to defy the censorship. It is refreshing to see Springer Nature publish the Japanese study.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/25/2024 - 22:25

Read More

Continue Reading

International

How visas for social care workers may be exacerbating exploitation in the sector

An independent report details ‘shocking’ Home Office mishandling of the visas.

Published

on

By

Ground Picture/Shutterstock

The health and social care visa route was introduced in August 2020 as a response to labour shortages after Brexit and the COVID pandemic. Now, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has found that the Home Office’s “limited understanding of the sector” has put care workers at risk of exploitation.

An independent report, published in March, details the Home Office’s “shocking” mishandling of the visas. It highlights problems in the way that the system to give social care providers the ability to sponsor workers from abroad operates. In one case, “275 certificates of sponsorship [were] granted to a care home that did not exist”.

The Home Office responded that this incident involved “a licence granted in the name of a real care home without their knowledge … obtained using false information/evidence”. It has accepted the chief inspector’s recommendations to improve the system, and said that many of these improvements were already underway.

The report details how the Home Office system has buckled under unforeseen demand for visas. The number of registered sponsors tripled from 30,730 organisations in 2019 to 94,704 by the end of November 2023, putting considerable pressure on the officials responsible for checking compliance with UK employment law and preventing migrants from working illegally. These issues are particularly acute in the care sector due to low pay and poor working conditions.

According to the inspector’s report, these weaknesses have created a scenario that puts large numbers of care workers at risk of exploitation. And the nature of restrictive visas, where your legal immigration status is tied to your role at a specific employer, means that care workers are discouraged from raising concerns about pay and conditions out of fear of losing their status.

Exploitation in the care sector

Exploitation in the care sector, including forced labour (a type of modern slavery), has been a concern for years. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted these issues in a report more than a decade ago. But figures have spiked alarmingly in recent years, according to the charity Unseen, which runs the UK’s modern slavery helpline.

In 2022, the year that the new health and care visa was added to the UK’s shortage occupation list, Unseen recorded a year-on-year increase of 606% in cases reported by care workers. Calls from potential victims of modern slavery from the care sector rose from 708 potential victims in 2022 to 918 in 2023.

My own research shows that care worker exploitation usually falls into one of four areas: debt bondage, recruitment, pay and substandard working practices. Live-in care workers are particularly vulnerable. Migrants may seek out live-in care jobs because accommodation is included.

Workers may become indebted to a recruitment agency, loan shark or members of their own family to secure a visa, only to then find that this is almost impossible to pay off from their wages. They may be deceived by the sponsoring organisation into paying extortionate visa costs – illegal recruitment fees of between £2,000 and £18,000 have been reported. And when they arrive in the UK, some find the job they expected fails to materialise. At least one local authority has identified a small number of such cases of organised immigration crime.

Close up of a care worker holding the hands of a woman.
The visa was introduced to cope with a care worker shortage. Yuri A/Shutterstock

There have also been reports of “clawback clauses” in care workers’ contracts. Some of these clauses require care workers to forego their final month’s salary and to pay back training and immigration costs to their employer. While proportionate repayments are legal, there is little guidance on the exact amounts that can be reclaimed. There have been reports of exit penalties amounting to between £1,300 and £11,500.

Transparency in supply chains

The Modern Slavery Act requires large commercial organisations to publish details of how they are preventing exploitation. But this does not currently apply to the majority of smaller providers or the local authorities who commission social care. The government has yet to make good on its 2019 promise to extend the transparency in supply chains duty to public authorities.

An encouraging number of local authorities have participated voluntarily, and have added their statements to a repository run by the Local Government Association.

But the government should be doing more to require transparency, given the level of exploitation still in the sector. The introduction of sanctions on all organisations who fail to publish annually could also encourage compliance and, as in other countries, provide valuable compensation funds for survivors.

At Nottingham University’s Rights Lab, I have worked with three English local authorities and the Local Government Association, to publish a set of guidelines for social care commissioners. These guidelines, which build on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Responsible Business Conduct framework, encourage local authorities to shore up worker protection in their social care contracts.

The UK needs social care workers, and visas for them, but even with planned changes to the sponsorship rules, it seems the risk of exploitation among care workers will remain.

Caroline Emberson works for the University of Nottingham. She has received funding for her research from the University of Nottingham, the UKs Economic and Social Research Council and the charitable foundation Trust for London.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fauci To Testify In Public Hearing On COVID-19 Response, Origins

Fauci To Testify In Public Hearing On COVID-19 Response, Origins

Authored by Stephen Katte via The Epoch Times,

Dr. Anthony Fauci is locked…

Published

on

Fauci To Testify In Public Hearing On COVID-19 Response, Origins

Authored by Stephen Katte via The Epoch Times,

Dr. Anthony Fauci is locked in to testify before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on June 3, his first public hearing since retiring as the president’s chief medical advisor in 2022.

Subcommittee Chair Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) announced in an April 24 press release that Dr. Fauci agreed to appear late last year.

“Retirement from public service does not excuse Dr. Fauci from accountability to the American people,” Mr. Wenstrup said.

“On June 3, Americans will have an opportunity to hear directly from Dr. Fauci about his role in overseeing our nation’s pandemic response, shaping pandemic-era policies, and promoting singular questionable narratives about the origins of COVID-19.”

Dr. Fauci testified in a closed door hearing in January.

According to Mr. Wenstrup, Dr. Fauci has already admitted “to serious systemic failures in our public health system,” which he says deserves “further investigation.”

Mr. Wenstrup says among other revelations, Dr. Fauci has said the six feet apart social distancing guidance, recommended by federal health officials and used to shut down small businesses across the country, “’sort of just appeared,” and was likely not based on scientific data.

During the two-day January hearing, Dr. Fauci revealed he signed off on every foreign and domestic NIAID grant without personally reviewing the proposals.

He also admitted that America’s vaccine mandates, which he promoted, could increase the public’s vaccine hesitancy in the future.

Lab Leak—Not So Far-Fetched

At the same time, Dr. Fauci said the lab leak hypothesis around COVID-19’s origins might not be a conspiracy theory, despite his previous very public assertions that it was.

The lab leak theory claims that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was developed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and was accidentally leaked. In the years since COVID first appeared, this hypothesis has been gaining steam, with even the former head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) saying it can’t be ruled out as an option.

Mr. Wenstrup claimed that during the previous hearing, Dr. Fauci said he “did not recall” specific COVID-19 information and conversations relevant to the Select Subcommittee’s investigations over 100 times.

A full transcript is expected to be released before the public hearing in June.

Mr. Wenstrup believes the testimony shared so far “raises significant concerns about public health officials and the validity of their policy recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“We also learned that he believes the lab leak hypothesis he publicly downplayed should not be dismissed as a conspiracy theory,” he said.

“As the face of America’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, these statements raise serious questions that warrant public scrutiny,” Mr. Wenstrup added.

Following Dr. Fauci’s hearing, the select subcommittee will also hold a public hearing with EcoHealth Alliance president Dr. Peter Daszak on May 1.

Mr. Wenstrup said it “will serve as a crucial component of our investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and provide essential background ahead of Dr. Fauci’s public hearing.”

“We look forward to both Dr. Fauci’s and Dr. Daszak’s forthcoming and honest testimonies, and appreciate their willingness to voluntarily appear before the Select Subcommittee for public hearings.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/25/2024 - 15:05

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending