Trump Campaign Sources Reveal What The Deal Was With His Blotched Hand: REPORT
It appears Trump was actually caught with blood on his hands- but it's not quite what it seems
Republican senators probing USDA's links to blacklisted Chinese biotech firm and its 'massive effort to sequence all of life'
Republican lawmakers are probing links between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a blacklisted genomics company that is under the de facto control of the communist Chinese regime.
Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) expressed concerns this week that ongoing American collaborations with BGI Genomics could jeopardize U.S. security as well as the nation's competitive edge.
The senators sent a letter to USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack Tuesday, pressing him for answers concerning the department's relationship with BGI and stressing the importance of vigilance in "safeguarding U.S.-funded research that has potential to be weaponized against the U.S.."
Background on BGI
BGI Genomics, formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute, runs a gargantuan gene databank and has secured DNA-sequencing contracts the world over, including for its COVID-19 and prenatal screening tests.
Axios noted in 2020 that BGI had agreed to build a gene bank and a "judicial collaboration" center in Xinjiang, where Chinese authorities reportedly erected Uyghur concentration camps, and sought to "build up genetics-based surveillance capabilities targeting ethnic minorities."
Reuters conducted a review of scientific papers and company statements in 2021, revealing that BGI sold prenatal tests globally that it had developed in collaboration with the Chinese military and was "using them to collect genetic data from millions of women for sweeping research on the traits of populations."
The review referenced March 2021 warnings from U.S military advisers that the vast bank of genomic data BGI was amassing could provide the communist Chinese regime with a means to a significant economic and military advantage.
This advantage could potentially take the form of a competitive edge in the development of pharmaceuticals, "genetically enhanced soldiers, or engineered pathogens to target the U.S. population or food supply."
While the company denied that it had ever been asked to provide data from its genetic tests "to Chinese authorities for national security or national defense purposes," Reuters pointed out that Beijing stipulated in a 2019 regulation that genetic data could be a national security matter — meaning the regime could ultimately access the data whenever it pleased.
The U.S. Defense Department added BGI and other Chinese companies to a blacklist last October.
The U.S. Department of Commerce indicated in a March 6 statement that BGI poses a "significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States."
The department further stated, "The addition of these entities is based upon information that indicates their collection and analysis of genetic data poses a significant risk of contributing to monitoring and surveillance by the government of China, which has been utilized in the repression of ethnic minorities in China."
In light of these concerns, the department added BGI to its Bureau of Industry and Security's Entity List for trade restrictions.
The Chinese threat
Even if presently benign, BGI's regulatory compromise by communist authorities means it could be quickly co-opted and used for nefarious purposes. Beijing's aspirations are, after all, antipodean to America's.
According to the Pentagon's 2022 "Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China," China "presents the most consequential and systematic challenge to U.S. national security and the free and open international system."
TheBlaze previously detailed how Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center on Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute, indicated in the book "The Hundred-Year Marathon" that the CCP's aim is "a world without American global supremacy."
Per the 2022 Pentagon report, China's "strategy entails deliberate and determined efforts to amass, improve, and harness the internal and external elements of national power that will place the PRC in a 'leading position' in an enduring competition between systems."
The report also referenced China's engagement in "biological activities with dual-use applications," which could be brought to bear against the U.S. in a potential conflict.
The four Republican senators seized upon this worry in their July 25 letter, writing that China "has been weaponizing biotech in preparation for strategic advantage in a new domain of biological warfare."
American decoupling
The Republican senators' letter indicated that USDA's Agriculture Research Service previously awarded $1 million to BGI and has collaborated with it on the Earth BioGenome Project since 2018 — an initiative to sequence the genomes of over 1.5 million species over a 10-year period.
"We are gravely concerned that the USDA is participating in this massive effort to sequence all of life with BGI's participation as an active research collaborator," wrote the senators.
The letter highlighted the Chinese regime's obstructionism during the pandemic and subsequent efforts to hamstring investigations into COVID-19's origins as evidence of China's unwillingness to shoot straight and play fair "despite data-sharing agreements and multiple-year collaborations between the PRC and U.S. public health agencies and universities."
"Even if USDA stopped paying BGI directly, through partnering with BGI and sharing U.S. intellectual property, the collaboration could endanger our security by giving China a strategic competitive edge to hold and store data that U.S. scientists have worked hard to develop," they wrote.
Sen. Marshall told the Epoch Times, "Our government must take extreme caution to prevent sponsoring research that gives any sensitive materials and intellectual property to the Chinese Communist Party."
"The CCP views biology as a domain of warfare which includes the study of all plant and animal living organisms," continued Marshall. "The USDA and all government agencies involved in cutting edge biological research must have better oversight when corresponding with CCP-sponsored organizations that are not immediately obvious."
The senators have prompted USDA Secretary Vilsack to answer to the USDA's involvement with the Earth BioGenome Project, its potential funding of research involving dangerous pathogens in "countries of concern," and whether the department has "planned for contingencies if access to data collected by BGI or any other China-based organization is suddenly terminated.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Unvaccinated blood matchmaking service developing global network
A Swiss nonprofit is building a vast network of unvaccinated individuals with the short-term goal of connecting blood recipients with unvaccinated blood donors across the world. Should its membership hit critical mass, Safe Blood Donation hopes to create an mRNA vaccine-free blood bank.
Blood pressure
"Horrified" by the vaccinated blood he has allegedly studied and convinced that "the whole vaccination thing" is mainly about "controlling people," Swiss naturopath George Della Dietra seeks to provide people with a choice about the kind of blood that flows through their veins.
Dietra told Vice News, "We want to be a platform for people who want to have the free choice of blood donors. ... Whether they think there is a real conspiracy theory going on, that the New World Order [is happening], or if they simply say ‘I just don't want it’ for whatever reason.”
This may be a tall order, especially since Dietra's organization would not bar vaccinated persons from becoming members. After all, there is presently limited supply.
According to the New York Times, roughly 71.1% of the world population has received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Dr. Michael Busch of the Vitalant Research Institute indicated that "less than 10 percent of the blood we collect does not have antibodies."
A September 2021 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 83.3% of donated blood had combined infection- and vaccine-induced antibodies.
The supermajority of prospective donors consequently have blood affected for good or ill by the controversial vaccines or by prior COVID-19 infection.
Newsweek reported last summer that some patients who had successfully forgone receiving a COVID-19 vaccine demanded blood transfusions only from unvaccinated donors.
A New Zealand couple may reportedly lose custody of their 4-month-old son on account of their insistence that he receive blood from unvaccinated people ahead of his lifesaving heart surgery.
Like the boy's parents, patients presently do not have a choice when it comes to vaccinated or unvaccinated blood.
Dr. Louis Katz, chief medical officer for ImpactLife, told Kaiser Health News that as of August 2021, he knew of "no one who has acceded to such a request, which would be an operational can of worms for a medically unjustifiable request."
Even if this "can of worms" were opened, the choice of blood would presently be uninformed since blood centers do not keep data regarding donors' vaccination status and are not required to by the Food and Drug Administration.
Safe Blood Donation's apparent answer to this problem is its searchable database of anonymous, unvaccinated members. Members can also search by region.
The organization claimed that as "soon as we have enough medical partners (for application, collection and processing of the blood), we will start with the mediation."
Far from functional
In its FAQ, Safe Blood Donation noted that it is far from realizing its goal of becoming a blood bank and will first need to acquire 100,000 more members so that "the politicians and lobbyists can no longer avoid taking us seriously."
In the meantime, the organization has advice for those who would like avoid vaccinated blood.
The nonprofit advises members to stipulate in their wills that they are against receiving canned blood, but also recommends against mentioning vaccination, noting that "it is actually not advisable to come out as an opponent of vaccination, because then you are immediately 'the enemy', and no one is interested in helping you."
"Write further that you indicate a relative (if you have one) as a potential blood donor who can be contacted immediately (or who is present in person at a scheduled surgery) who has the same blood type. If you do not have a relative, write to us immediately when the hospital gives the green light to your plan – then we will find one," said the FAQ.
Kaiser Health News noted that persons requiring transfusions can also donate their own blood ahead of time.
While it appears as though Safe Blood Donation intends to work covertly in the interim, it anticipates members might one day be able to produce their membership cards with instructions concerning blood type and have their requests respected.
Vice reported that the nonprofit already has members in at least 16 countries, although Safe Blood Donation's website suggests it has members in over 60 countries worldwide, with at least 25 pumping blood in the U.S..
The initial joining fee is around $50 and approximately $20 per year thereafter.
FDA 'will likely support' ending ban on blood donation from sexually active homosexuals despite blood banks' difficulty testing for HIV
In 1983, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a lifetime ban on homosexuals who had engaged in gay sex since 1977. According to a new report in the Wall Street Journal, the FDA may soon allow certain homosexuals to share their vital fluids.
What are the details?
People said to be familiar with the FDA's plans told the Wall Street Journal that homosexuals in monogamous relationships will soon be allowed to donate blood without having to abstain from sex. The new rules and guidance, which have yet to be finalized, will reportedly be issued sometime in the coming months.
The FDA's forthcoming decision to turn the spigot on a new source of blood reportedly comes after an agency-funded study of approximately 1,600 sexually active homosexuals was launched to "determine if a blood donor history questionnaire based on individual risk would be an acceptable alternative to a time-based deferral in reducing the risk of HIV among gay and bisexual men who present to donate blood."
Although the study conducted by the FDA and three of the largest nonprofit blood centers in the U.S. has not been resolved, it has, according to Brian Custer, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, generated "highly relevant information to envision what an individual risk-based approach would look like.”
All donors, irrespective of their disproportionate likelihood to carry HIV, will have to complete a comparable individualized risk assessment.
An FDA official indicated that the questionnaire, still being drafted, will ask prospective blood donors if they have had any new sexual partners in the past three months. Those who answer in the negative will be able to donate blood.
Those who indicate they have been promiscuous will be prompted to answer to whether they have had anal sex.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV." Although both participants involved in this particular act of sodomy are at risk, the recipient is at greater risk.
The CDC also noted that normal sex "is less risky for getting HIV than receptive anal sex."
Those who answer in the negative about having anal sex will be able to donate blood. Those who answered in the affirmative will simply have to wait three months before donating blood.
The significance of the three-month window is that an HIV infection would reportedly become apparent in that time.
Risky business
The Wall Street Journal noted that the FDA's likely new change won't necessarily come without risks.
While HIV testing has improved over the years — enabling blood banks to toss out bad blood taken from people long-infected — no available test can presently detect HIV immediately after infection.
Dr. Bruce Walker, an infectious-diseases specialist, told the Wall Street Journal that "with the latest HIV tests, that window is probably no greater than 10 days from the time of exposure."
The CDC noted that antibody tests, which look for antibodies to HIV in a person's blood or oral fluid, can take 23 to 90 days to detect HIV after exposure.
Antigen/body tests, which look for both HIV antibodies and antigens, can take anywhere from 18 to 90 days after exposure.
Nucleic acid tests (NATs), which look for the actual virus in the blood, "can usually detect HIV 10 to 33 days after exposure." Although highly sensitive, there have been incidents documented where NATs have failed to detect infected blood.
Life-saving 'discrimination'
Gay activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have long suggested that the policy prohibiting homosexuals from donating blood was discriminatory, even if it prevented healthy homosexuals from receiving bad blood.
Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said, "It is a completely outdated policy that doesn't reflect our current ability to test blood for HIV or the medical science around HIV."
When the initial blood ban was first instituted, the purpose was not to discriminate but to save lives.
Marguerita Lightfoot, director of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, told Men's Health that in the early 1980s, "We were still trying to figure out the transmission of the virus, and all we knew was that this population was disproportionately impacted."
That remains the case today.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, as of 2018, 13,000 people die from AIDS in the U.S. every year, and over 700,000 have died nationwide since the beginning of the HIV epidemic. AIDS is the late stage of HIV infection.
Like the recent rash of monkeypox cases, homosexuals were disproportionately impacted by the spread of the disease.
According to the CDC, in 2019, homosexuals made up nearly 70% of all new HIV diagnoses in the U.S.
Notwithstanding the higher incidence of HIV infections in the demographic, in 2015, the FDA lifted its lifetime ban on homosexuals donating blood, "changing its recommendation that men who have sex with men (MSM) be indefinitely deferred ... to 12 months since the last sexual contact with another man."
Despite its apparent significance, this change was met by derision from gay activists.
The LGBT activist organization GLAAD posted a video of script-reader Alan Cumming to YouTube, wherein he mocked the idea that gay men could abstain from sex for an entire year.
Kelsey Louie, the former CEO of the AIDS service organization Gay Men's Health Crisis, lauded the 2015 decision, saying, "The United States government has to stop reacting to HIV like it is the early 1980s. ... It is time for the FDA to implement a policy that is truly based on science, not blanket bans on certain groups of people."
That 12-month waiting time will likely soon be cut down to 3 months and only apply to non-monogamous homosexual donors.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com