ICAN’s legal team sent FOIA requests to the Departments of Education of all 20 US states which have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS) to investigate whether pro-geoengineering content is infiltrating K-12 curriculums. Documents obtained by ICAN reveal public school curriculum is normalizing geoengineering and even promoting it as a solution to combat so-called climate change.
Twenty US states require their K-12 science curriculum to align with NGSS, impacting over 36% of students nationwide. Concerningly, the NGSS’s Human Sustainability standard, HS-ESS3-4, requires students to “[e]valuate or refine a technological solution that reduces impacts of human activities on natural systems” including “large-scale geoengineering design solutions (such as altering global temperatures by making large changes to the atmosphere or ocean).”
While not all states have completed processing the FOIA requests, those that have reveal a troubling pattern. So far, Kentucky and New Hampshire’s responses confirm that their curriculum must align with NGSS standards, including HS-ESS3-4. Additionally, a Michigan Department of Education email obtained by ICAN promotes the use of a high school unit which requires students to use “investigations, simulations, and system models” to “figure out how…two geoengineering solutions could help slow polar ice melt, protecting coastal communities.”
Disturbingly, the NGSS standards do NOT explicitly require students to evaluate how geoengineering could impact their health. If the supposed environmental benefits of geoengineering are being taught, shouldn’t our children also learn about its potential catastrophic consequences? Intentionally injecting pollutants into the atmosphere to block the sun poses unknown—and potentially dire—threats to the air we breathe, water we drink, and soil we grow our crops in.
Merely presenting one side of an issue fails to equip our children with the tools they will need to make informed decisions. If you have found geoengineering in your school district’s K-12 curriculum, please let us know by emailing us at takeaction@icandecide.org.
To support future legal actions like this, click here to donate.
_______________
**Comment**
They did this with GMO as well. I remember a teenage girl gushing about how GMO food was going to ‘feed the world,’ and all I could think was, ‘if it doesn’t kill us first.’ Sadly, school curriculum is based upon politics, not what is healthy or good for the environment. It’s also a way to normalize a contentious topic – just sell it as truth and never present opposing viewpoints. Another reason to homeschool!
Another crap paper put out by JAMA claiming the clot shots reduced deaths is flawed to the hilt and is another perfect example of how to lie with statistics. The study is guilty of using crude matching to claim a benefit.
FDA Investigating Deaths Potentially Linked to COVID-19 Vaccines Across Age Ranges
The probe followed a health official’s memo indicating that the vaccines could be tied to the deaths of 10 children
By Aldgra Fredly
|Updated:
Article Excerpts:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is looking into the potential links between COVID-19 vaccination and deaths in various age groups, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The FDA investigation is being carried out as part of a safety review, a HHS spokesperson said on Dec. 9.
The probe follows a Nov. 28 memo by Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which revealed that COVID-19 vaccines were likely implicated in the deaths of at least 10 children.
The spokesperson did not provide details on which age groups will be covered or what criteria the FDA will use to determine which cases fall within the scope of the investigation.
“If anything, this represents conservative coding, where vaccines are exculpated rather than indicted in cases of ambiguity. The real number is higher,” he stated in the memo. “This is a profound revelation.” ~ Dr. Vinay Prasad
The memo states that the FDA never required manufacturers to demonstrate—through randomized controlled trials—that vaccinating children reduced hospitalization or death. Available data, Prasad wrote, are deeply limited, rely on methods with notorious biases, and fail to establish whether the vaccine saved more children than it harmed.
Prasad criticized common assertions that COVID-19 infection posed a greater myocarditis risk than vaccination, saying that this claim is wrong, that existing studies use “a false denominator,” and fail to evaluate risk-benefit trade-offs for healthy adolescents and young adults.
“Finally, the FDA has failed to properly enforce many required post market commitments for COVID-19 vaccines, including for pregnant women and to document subclinical myocarditis,” he wrote.
Tell the FCC to Stop Cell Towers In Your Neighborhood
This is a hill to die on. Submit your comments to the FCC before Dec. 31, and urge your local elected officials to push back against unchecked cell tower expansion.
December 4, 2025
Imagine waking up to a giant cell tower right next to your home or child’s school.
If adopted, new rules proposed by the FCC will give the wireless industry dictatorial control of cell towers, giving them the right to place them anywhere and everywhere – and there will be virtually nothing you can do to stop it.
What You Can Do:
Make your voice part of the official record by submitting a clear statement before the end of the year opposing these newly proposed rules. Follow the instructions below.
Alert your local officials (mayors, city council members, zoning and planning board members, as well as any additional officials whom you know personally). and ask them to submit comments on your community’s behalf. Share our sample letter (available in Microsoft Word, Google Doc, and PDF format) which can be adapted to the particulars of your community.
How to Submit a Short Comment
To submit an Express Comment of no more than 2,000 characters:
Enter your mailing address (required) and email address (optional) in the appropriate fields.
Under the field *Brief Comments enter a comment of your choice or use the suggested text below.
Check the box that says Note: By checking this box, I acknowledge that I am filing a document into an official FCC proceeding. All information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the web. Privacy Act Statement.
Select Continue to Review Screen.
Check the box that says I’m not a robot.
Click Submit.
Suggested Short Comment Text:
I strongly urge you not to adopt the proposed rules or take any of the other contemplated actions set out in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket 25-276, misleadingly titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments.” This initiative is not about “building America” — it is about stripping away local rights, eliminating public participation, and giving the wireless industry near-total control over the placement of cell towers.
If adopted, these rules would:
* Force automatic approval of towers after 150 days, even if there is strong community opposition.
* Block local governments from requiring independent experts to verify FCC radiation compliance with exposure guidelines, leaving the industry to self-certify.
* Eliminate vital community protections by prohibiting consideration of aesthetics, property values, and historic preservation.
* Undermine property rights by driving down home values without recourse or compensation.
* Silence residents by removing public hearings, conditional and special use permits, and local decision-making.
These rules would allow towers to be placed virtually anywhere, with no say from the people who must live with them. This is unacceptable.
I respectfully call the FCC to reject these rules and preserve the authority of local governments to protect the health, safety, and character of their communities.
How to Submit a Longer Comment
To submit a Standard Filing (more than 2,000 characters):
Write your comment separately and save it as one of these file types: .docx, .doc, .pdf, .xlsx, .xls, .txt, .pptx, .ppt, .rtf
This is a hill to die on. Submit your comments to the FCC before Dec. 31, and urge your local elected officials to push back. Take additional action and learn more about how these rules will silence your community and hand total power to telecom giants.
Don’t forget to share this campaign. Send this link to friends, family, and neighbors — the more voices, the stronger our stand.
______________
For more:
https://stopsmartmeters.org/The state of California always seems to be the testing ground. They’ve been battling this unsafe technology for decades and light years ahead of Wisconsin. Their ‘stopsmartmeter’ website has virtually everything you need to know within it including the recommended EMF meters to check your own EMF in your home and business.
Another ill-conceived effort to reform the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway directly threatens access to countless safe supplements and natural products. Action Alert!
THE TOPLINE
Rep. Pallone’s GRAS reform bill would eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway and replace it with an FDA pre-approval system—raising costs, reducing competition, and threatening access to many safe, natural supplement ingredients.
The bill gives FDA broad new powers to retroactively challenge existing ingredients and to reassess GRAS substances without considering dose, opening the door to EU-style bans on nutrients essential for health.
While transparency reforms are needed, abolishing the “self-GRAS” pathway entirely would overwhelm FDA and harm consumers, all while failing to address the real problem: the risk assessment approach used by the agency itself that has allowed many dangerous food additives to remain on the US market.
Over the last few months, we’ve been telling you about federal bills aimed at reforming how food and supplement ingredients come to the market through the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) pathway. These bills have come on the heels of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. identifying the elimination of dangerous food additives as a priority, asking the FDA to explore eliminating the “self-GRAS” pathway, whereby companies certify an ingredient as GRAS and add it to food without notifying the agency.
We’ve argued that many of these proposals, however well-intentioned, are misguided. Yes, we all want safer food. Yes, some unscrupulous companies may take advantage of the self-GRAS pathway to sneak bad ingredients into food. But the truth is that the US GRAS system is the primary mechanism used to get micronutrients—like vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and thousands of botanicals—as well as food additives like dyes, preservatives, thickeners and a whole host of other additives that have technological, rather than nutritional, functions, onto the US market.
This means that if you set up roadblocks and pre-market approvals for the food additives that any health-conscious consumer might have concerns about, you also threaten consumer access to thousands of entirely safe, natural ingredients which come to the market as GRAS—including many of the ingredients in supplements you care about. Changing the entire regime into a de facto pre-market approval system, with the FDA as the gatekeeper, is, as we wrote in our white paper on this topic, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It will have the effect of reducing consumer access to some of the healthiest ingredients that are both know to be safe and proven to be of benefit to health. It will also impact the smaller, more innovative manufacturers and suppliers the most by creating regulatory barriers that are only accessible to big players. This is exactly what we don’t want because it ends up depriving citizens of choice.
A Push for Reform That Misses the Mark
A bill introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) to reform the GRAS system makes many of the same mistakes as the other bills we’ve covered previously (here and here). Rep. Pallone’s bill proposes eliminating ‘self-GRAS’ entirely, requiring companies to submit detailed notifications to the FDA on new GRAS substances; only after the FDA has issued a written statement to not object to the GRAS notice can that ingredient be used. This is a pre-approval system for GRAS ingredients, plain and simple, which will increase costs, decrease competition, and eliminate many safe, healthy ingredients from the marketplace.
Speaking to the problems with this bill, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord said, “Regrettably, Congressman Frank Palone’s bill eliminates all future self-GRAS but grandfathers all prior self-GRAS determinations, leaving in the market the very subset of unsafe food additives in need of removal. The bill is underinclusive and overinclusive, failing to direct government to target demonstrably unsafe food additives for market removal, whether FDA approved or self-GRAS—the approach ANH advocates in our white paper on the subject).”
A Dangerous Expansion of FDA Power
Further, the FDA is handed the authority to require a GRAS notice for any ingredient considered GRAS before the enactment of the bill, giving the agency arbitrary authority to go after ingredients it doesn’t like. You can bet that natural substances and supplements that compete with drugs are on the hit list.
The Precautionary Principle Problem
The bill also requires the FDA to reassess 10 GRAS ingredients every three years, looking at, among other things, whether the ingredient is carcinogenic or can cause reproductive or developmental issues—without specifying that the assessment should be based on the intended use and dose. This pushes us directly into the problems caused by relying on the precautionary principlewhich dominates assessments by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), thatwe wrote about previously, that have been catastrophic for consumer choice in Europe.
Emord also spoke to this issue: “This bill invites all new food additives to be assessed for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity without regard to dose. That undermines the historic toxicological basis for adulteration law—in effect, the Paracelsian Principle—wherein dose determines toxicity. Without that limitation on the exercise of government power, FDA may well adopt the Precautionary Principle as used in the EU, which gives essentially unbridled discretion to the government to remove food additives on cancer or birth defect grounds without having to prove those effects result from the form or dose levels actually being recommended. That approach would, if applied to existing food additives and other GRAS ingredients, cause many to be banned that are health enhancing, such as those containing selenium. That is because many substances we commonly consume, and are essential for good health, become carcinogenic or mutagenic at high dose levels. It is a foundational truism of toxicology that everything—even water—is toxic at some dose level.
The upshot is, under bills like Rep. Pallone’s, we risk losing access to safe, health-promoting ingredients due to a misapplication of the precautionary principle. This is a principle that gathered momentum decades back as a means of limiting exposure to environmental chemicals like pesticides and air pollutants to which exposure has no benefits, only the potential for risk. So when regulators now apply this same principle to substances like nutrients that have distinct benefits, they risk using the inevitable uncertainty in the science to eliminate exposure (altogether or at least a beneficial levels), so depriving us of benefits.
Transparency Is Needed—But This Isn’t It
None of this is to say that there aren’t problems with the current GRAS system. We’ve laid out these issues in detail in our recent white paper, Reforming GRAS: Food Safety Without Sacrifice. Notably, the drive towards more transparency is crucial. It is not acceptable that companies can self-certify an ingredient as safe and add it to our food without any transparency or accountability. That’s why, among other recommendations in our white paper, we call for the creation of a GRAS Transparency Register, making all GRAS determinations public for review by independent experts, consumer groups, and researchers.
The Real Source of Harmful Additives: FDA Approvals
There’s a common misconception that the self-affirmed GRAS pathway is the main culprit behind the flood of harmful ingredients in our food supply. But many of the additives most often cited by critics—Red 40, Yellow 5, titanium dioxide, potassium bromate, aspartame, sodium nitrite, and BHA—have actually been reviewed and approved by the FDA, either as food or color additives or through the GRAS process itself. These substances were greenlit despite substantial evidence of health risks. The real issue, then, is that most harmful additives were approved through official FDA channels—not industry exploitation of loopholes.
A Better Path Forward
Abolishing the self-GRAS pathway altogether, as proposed by Rep. Pallone’s bill as well as other bills, would wreak havoc on the food and dietary supplement industries and create an enormous workload for the FDA, which the agency would likely be unable to manage given current staffing. Creating another de facto pre-market approval system undermines the original purpose of the GRAS pathway: to streamline the introduction of safe ingredients, including many natural ingredients, into food.
We need lawmakers to hear from YOU, their constituents, that real reform means not throwing the nutrient baby out with the GRAS bathwater.
I Tried to Warn You All About the False Positives from Non‑Quantitative RT‑PCR on SARS‑CoV‑2
No One Acted.
Now AIV H5 RT‑qPCR Is Set to Repeat the Same Catastrophe.
The Pandemaniacs Are Everywhere. Proper standards for nucleic acid testing will keep them at bay. The time to act is NOW. Tomorrow, it could be too late. I urge you to read and act.
The settings for a COVID 2.0 Pandemic of False Positives are all in place. “We must catch every case” is no excuse to misdiagnose individuals and let them cook and potentially die at home quarantined w/untreated, misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia or other less virulent respiratory illnesses.
We could have saved millions and millions of lives if people had understood and acted in April 2020: False positives in PCR tests drove the COVID-19. We must not allow a repeat with avian flu.
In 2020, I warned—publicly, repeatedly, in articles, podcasts, and tweets, and with evidence, fighting censorship all the way—that using non‑quantitative RT‑PCR as the primary driver of pandemic policy would guarantee a tidal wave of false positives, distort epidemiology, and weaponize diagnostic noise as public fear. Those warnings were not vague or speculative; they were precise, technically grounded, peer‑reviewed, and absolutely correct.
I explained that without internal negative controls for Ct‑stratification, nested PCR confirmation, or sequencing, PCR tests would be repurposed into fear‑amplifiers rather than disease‑detectors. I warned that once governments built policy on raw PCR counts and arbitrary Ct values, no one would be able to distinguish real outbreaks from diagnostic artifacts. I said we would lose the ability to tell signal from noise, disease from contamination, and epidemiology from hysteria. I knew I was right. But too few could understand how central the diagnostic grift was the COVID-19 fear mongering.
People in high places heard the warnings. They understood them. I know, because I warned Peter Marks at US F.D.A. And others.
And he and the others who knew did nothing. Millions died after developing severe, untreated, misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia.
That inaction helped create a world where some actors benefited from chaos—whether through political leverage, pharmaceutical opportunism, or supranational control frameworks. Call them what they are: enemies of stability who thrive when populations panic.
I warned too early. Nothing happened.
But then they came after all of our jobs. All of them. That got our attention. But cataclysmic damage was already done, including millions of deaths due to misdiagnosed and untreated bacterial pneumonia and sepsis.
We Must Call them “PANDEMANIACS”
Now, those same forces stand ready to exploit the next diagnostic mirage. Pandemaniacs are all over Twitter, Bluesky, everywhere posting one-off references to H5N1 as an inevitable next pandemic.
We must hold the line: NO PROOF OF SEQUENCE? NO DIAGNOSIS. NO CASE Count. NO NESTED CONFIRMATION. NO CURVE. NO PANDEMIC.
This is the line.
This is the standard.
This is the bright red boundary that must not be crossed again.
If sequencing is not performed, then PCR positives are NOT clinical cases, NOT epidemiological evidence, and NOT a valid basis for public‑health actions.
(See link for article)
______________
**Comment**
Spread the word and stand your ground.
Refuse to be moved by fear tactics and those spouting a ‘follow the science’ mantra who are merely spreading and following a narrative.
Weiler rightly demands the following:
100% nested RT‑PCR + Sanger sequencing of all early outbreak samples until ≥300 true positives are confirmed.
2 to 20% ongoing sequencing confirmation, stratified across Ct bands (<25, 25–30, 30–35, >35), laboratories, and sample types to provide N>1000 empirical votes on SN, SP, FPR, and FDR.
Full disclosure of Ct distributions, LoD, assay design, primer/probe sequences, and sequencing confirmation rates.
Immediate audits of any laboratory with a confirmation rate <80% in any sample category.
Mandatory sequence deposition in open databases.
If a lab cannot meet these standards, it should not be generating case counts. Period.
Weiler points out:
A recent re‑analysis of a nationwide dataset (the German “ALM” consortium, which handled ~90% of the country’s SARS‑CoV‑2 PCR testing) found that when cumulative RT‑PCR positives were compared against later IgG seroconversion data, the scaling factor that best fit the observed antibody curves was 0.14 — meaning only ~14% of PCR-positive individuals ever developed detectable antibodies, consistent with actual infection.
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2022/04/12/former-cdc-director-bird-flu-is-the-real-pandemic-c19-was-just-practice/I just heard Redfield again on bird flu fear-porn. The only thing he and I agree upon is that they need to stop working on these ‘viruses’ in the lab to make them worse. He never mentioned anything about immunity, how to achieve true health, or cheap, effective, safe treatments like ivermectin/HCQ/zinc/vit C for COVID, but continued the narrative of Paxlovid and public health talking points based on vaccines, although he finally admitted vaccines won’t work for respiratory diseases. Deborah Birx and Redfield are completely beholden to the public health narrative and Big Pharma. Birx actually has proposed weekly testing for every cow in America to ‘stop bird flu,’ which is utter lunacy from every standpoint: 1) testing is a complete joke 2) we will never ‘stop’ any true virus. It will simply run its course as history repeatedly shows 3) even if it were worth it, the logistics of testing every cow in America make it unfeasible.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 