Letters to the the editor:
Public Health under Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.–Why any experienced medical or health professional can conclude that our public health experts deserve our trust after the Covid debacle is puzzling, if not downright alarming. Lockdowns, school closures, business closures, masking, 6 foot distancing, our elderly in hospitals and care homes dying without loved ones, vaccine mandates, unreliable PCR tests, denial of effective “off label” treatments, harmful hospital Covid protocls, denial of natural immunity, massive censorship, on and on. None of these alleged “expert” recommendations during the Covid pandemic were effective in protecting our citizens, but were decidedly and obviously harmful in many ways. (the US has 4% of the world’s population but racked up 16% of Covid deaths).
The experimental and widely mandated Covid mRNA vaccines are not vaccines as commonly understood, but genetic interventions. A vaccine is meant to protect against infection and its spread. The Covid jab did neither effectively, so the “experts” simply redefined a vaccine as a medicine that stimulates an immune response…. a questionably broad umbrella intended to reassure those who subscribe to the narrative that anything called a vaccine be accepted without question.
To top it off, our experts continue to recommend the covid shots/boosters for infants, children, young adults, and pregnant women, none of whom will benefit but will be exposed a variety of now well documented vaccine harms. (see my article in 2021, it still stands … hands off children and pregnant women!)
All the misinformation/propaganda emanating from public health agencies, and by extension from from once trusted health care providers, is sadly nothing new, as it has been the same playbook employed for decades to manufacture and coerce consent for the bloated childhood vaccine schedule . These tactics have been blatantly exposed for many to see during the pandemic, hence vaccine hesitancy has understandably reached all time highs among both lay people and health professionals.
RFK, Jr. is quite aware of these problems. Though being branded as a conspiracy theorist (ironically that label was first applied to those who questioned the narrative around the assassination of his uncle, JFK) and antivaxxer, he is neither… He has assured that vaccines will be continue to be freely available to those that want them. Much of the evidence for his statements already exists and will be made publicly available. Appropriate studies concerning vaccine safety will finally be funded. The Nuremberg Code of Ethics may well resume its rightful place as the very foundation of medical ethics (including the right of refusal) for any medical intervention.
His likely upcoming cabinet role as Secretary of Health and Human Services will be a welcome breath of sorely needed fresh air, for supporters and detractors alike… and most particularly for parents whose responsibility it is to protect their vulnerable children from medical harm and abuse- Sandy Reider MD
Unnecessary escalation of war–President Biden reversed himself on Ukraine using long range missiles against Russia. These missiles are already in Ukraine and maintained by American personnel. Biden further authorized using anti-personnel mines and imposed new sanctions on Russian Energy. This escalation, according to Senator Ben Cardin (D.Md) will give Ukraine leverage that will force Russia into the negotiation table to end this war.
Republicans are concerned that Biden’s action was done intentionally to complicate any Trump peace deal that could surface when he takes office. Biden’s aggressive policy shift got an immediate reaction from President Putin. He fired an intercontinental ballistic missile into Ukraine using multiple reentry vehicles carrying explosives. Putin said it was a new Russian hypersonic-undetectable missile. Will the next missile have nuclear warheads?
Obama’s former Sec. of Defense, Robert Gates, said Biden was “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Though the White House has indicated these policy decisions were made by the President it is evident his infirmity is getting worse. It is questionable whether he ordered or understands the severity of these actions.
Special Counsel Hur portrayed Biden as too old and impaired to hold the highest office. With 60 days remaining in President Biden’s term, is there a competent elected person looking out for our best interest? Biden should consult and/or relegate these decisions to President-elect Trump, who got a strong confidence vote November 5–Frank Mazur, South Burlington
VT Fish and Wildlife thanks trappers- who’s really in charge? A recent article published in the Vermont Furbearer Newsletter by Brehan Furfey, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department furbearer biologist, entitled, “A Word of Thanks to Vermont’s Trappers,” illustrates the inherent bias and resulting obstacles to truly scientific, objective management of Vermont’s furbearer species (e.g. otters, bobcats, foxes). Among the encomiums Furfey lavishes on trappers are: “conservation-minded,” “community scientists,” “responsible,” and “self-regulating.” This is all part of Fish and Wildlife’s marketing ploy to elevate the image of trappers, whose numbers are dwindling and represent just 0.15 percent of Vermont’s population. What’s even more concerning is that Furfey and Commissioner Christopher Herrick starred in a trapping propaganda film created by the Vermont Trappers Association that was full of misinformation and fear tactics. Herrick and Furfey drew a political line in the sand, referring to the majority of Vermonters who oppose trapping as “animal rights extremists,” which couldn’t be further from the truth. They are supposed to work for all Vermonters, not for any special interest group.
Every one of the Department’s claims as to how trappers “contribute” to furbearer conservation in Vermont can be refuted or shown to be without foundation. For example, trapping is not an effective means of population control of furbearers because it indiscriminately targets members of a species, and indeed can hardly target one species over another in the typical leghold or conibear trap (i.e., a lynx or a marten can just as easily be caught in a trap set for a bobcat or a mink). A healthy animal is just as likely to be caught in a trap as a diseased one; a male is just as likely to be caught as a female; a young animal is just as likely to be caught as a mature one; and so on. In general, furbearer species self-regulate their populations based on the carrying capacity of the land, or in other words, depending on the quantity of prey or other food available, and in accordance with the internal dynamics of the colony or pack. There is therefore no need for trapping to keep these populations “in balance” with the landscape; indeed, trapping can interfere with these self-regulation dynamics and therefore be counterproductive. There is also no need for trapping to resolve human-animal conflicts when so many non-lethal and more sustainable solutions are available, and have been for a long time now.
Trapped carcasses do provide “data” for the department, such as how many animals are being poisoned by “environmental toxins,” such as rodenticide. But this is also a Catch 22, in that trapping also places its own stressors on furbearer populations and the trapping lobby inhibits the department from acting on this data. For example, it has been found that 100 percent of fishers, a key predator species that plays an important role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, tested positive for rodenticide. At the same time, the Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data, a way to measure population trends, has indicated that the fisher population has been in decline since at least 2000. Such data argue strongly for two actions: 1) that rodenticide use be curtailed; 2) that trapping of fishers be temporarily suspended until the population recovers. The Department and Fish and Wildlife Board has thus far refused to do either of these things, despite petitions submitted in support. Indeed, when Protect Our Wildlife petitioned the Board in 2021 for a suspension of trapping of fisher, the Department and Board denied it. When the Department fails to act upon the clear implications of its own data, how can the public trust their intentions? A new petition for a moratorium on fisher trapping was heard at the most recent Fish & Wildlife Board meeting in October. However, I don’t hold out much hope that they’ll respond any differently to this one than they did back in 2021, despite further evidence that the fisher population is at risk.
Although the Department claims that trapping is “humane,” the bottom line is that the actual mechanics of the steel-jawed leghold trap argues against this: The trap’s powerful jaws will slam shut upon whatever limb or portion of its face that an animal uses to trigger the trip pan of the trap. Even when the Department was tasked with coming up with Best Management Practices (BMPs) for trapping in accordance with Act 159 (passed in 2022), it came up short; when reviewed by LCAR (Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules), which is charged with reviewing rule making by all state agencies, the Department’s proposed trapping regs were deemed insufficient. All this strongly suggests that management policy decisions with regard to wildlife are being made out of political deference to the Vermont Trappers Association, rather than in accordance with sound scientific principles and the wishes of the vast majority of Vermonters. For this reason, the best thing lawmakers could do is to ban recreational trapping, which is counterproductive to so many of the Department’s goals, including protecting wildlife habitat such as the wetlands created by beavers, and protecting endangered species like the lynx and marten. Lynx and martens don’t stand a chance in Vermont when they can be just as easily ensnared in a trap set for a bobcat, coyote, mink, or other “furbearer”. Making up reasons to justify trapping is not only disingenuous, it is harmful to true conservation.
So, in response to trappers’ desire to continue their recreational pursuits, we should say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” —John Aberth, Roxbury