Baton Rouge, LA — (RT) A Louisiana sheriff and two jail staff have been hit with a federal lawsuit after a teen inmate was moved away from the juvenile unit and subsequently raped by an adult cellmate who infected him with HIV.
The lawsuit, filed Monday, accuses East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Sid Gautreaux, prison warden Dennis Grimes, and a corrections officer by the name of Deputy Daniels of violating the teen’s constitutional rights.
The suit states that the teen met the criteria of being a “high risk sexual victim” under the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act and should have remained segregated from the jail’s general population. He was 5’10” and 125 pounds at the time of the incident and “mildly physical handicapped due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome suffered as a child.”
Instead, the suit says the 17-year-old was transferred away from the jail’s juvenile wing and into the cell of a man who is awaiting trial on charges that he raped a woman in 2015. He is also charged with battery and burglary, local CBS affiliate WAFB reported.
On February 16, 2017, the teen was reportedly awakened by the rape and was threatened to not speak about the incident. He managed to alert jail staff by giving a deputy a note. As a result, he was separated from the cellmate and taken to the facility’s infirmary.
The young inmate suffered a fractured bone during the incident and was treated at a local hospital. He was given anti-HIV medication, and the hospital told him to follow up in six months to test if he was infected. According to the suit, the sheriff’s office did not follow up on the teen’s six-month check-up. He was ultimately diagnosed as being HIV-positive in December.
The suit states that the prison warden and corrections officer should have never placed a “high risk sexual victim” in a cell with an inmate who had been considered a high-risk sexual predator by the warden’s staff. It also says the warden should have known about the inmate’s HIV status and isolated him from the rest of the prison’s population.
The suit is seeking compensatory damages against each of the three defendants, along with attorney’s fees and punitive damages against the victim’s cellmate and the corrections officer.
No new cases of HIV emerged among a group of gay men who had unprotected sex with infected partners who were undergoing treatment in a new Australian study. While this might be shocking to those of us who have been subjected to the CDC’s fear campaigns surrounding the virus, most scientists and doctors who have been working in AIDS-related fields have long known that the risks of transmission are often wildly exaggerated.
University of New South Wales researchers assessed the sexual activity and rates of HIV transmission among more than 350 gay couples in which one partner was infected with the virus. Each of the couples, who lived in Australia, Thailand and Brazil, reported their sexual activity over the course of four years. During that time, the HIV-negative partners were tested regularly to detect any new infections.
During the study’s four-year duration, not a single participant contracted HIV from his HIV-positive partner, even though the participants had anal sex nearly 17,000 times in total without using condoms. Although three new cases did arise, analysis of the virus in those men found that it was caused not by the infected partner but from sex outside of the relationship. The findings of what is said to be the biggest study of its kind were presented during the Paris AIDS Conference on HIV Science.
This research highlights the importance of preventing the transmission of the virus, particularly when it comes to gay men. According to the study’s lead author, Professor Andrew Grulich, the risk of transmission via anal sex is 10 times higher than the risk through vaginal intercourse.
Prevention is the focus of the “Undetectable equals Untransmissible” campaign that is currently underway and is aimed at urging those who have the virus to continue their treatment so they do not infect others with it.
Statistics paint a far different story than that depicted by CDC fear-mongering
Contrast this with the approach used in the 1980s and 1990s, when HIV fears hit a fever pitch. Despite the overwhelming evidence that gay men have a much higher risk of contracting the disease than heterosexual couples, false fears were spread to secure more funding. Posters depicting graveyards and cemeteries did their best to scare everyone into thinking they were at risk, all while taking much-needed funding away from the at-risk groups that needed help the most.
In 1987, the use of federal funds for AIDS prevention campaigns that encouraged or promoted homosexual activities was banned. Many people feel that some used the opportunity to push their morals on others given the nature of transmission.
In a 1996 article that the Wall Street Journal boldly published on its front page entitled “AIDS Fight Is Skewed By Federal Campaign Exaggerating Risks”, writers Anita Sharpe and Amanda Bennet took federal health officials to task for misleading the public about the odds, which they said are 1,000 to one against female HIV infection from a single incident of vaginal intercourse with an HIV-positive male partner. They added the risk was smaller than getting hit by lightning.
They drew attention to the CDC’s “marketing campaign” to help funding flow to various AIDS programs, which exaggerated the risk of heterosexual transmission because campaign planners felt that funding was unlikely if the disease was viewed mainly as a problem confined to gay men and drug abusers.
Most of the cases of HIV spread among women and heterosexual men stem from intravenous drug use rather than sexual intercourse, and we now also know that transmission from those with undetectable viral loads who stick to their treatment regimen is practically zero, even among homosexuals.
No AIDS epidemic among heterosexuals
In 2008, the head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS division at the time, Dr. Kevin de Cook, made waves when he said “There will be no generalized epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population outside Africa.” He admitted that heterosexual epidemics were unlikely to erupt in countries outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
His comment came at a time when AIDS organizations like UN AIDS, the Global Fund, and the WHO were under fire for inflating their estimates of the number of infected people and diverting funds from other pressing health problems like malaria in addition to focusing on unrealistic measures like abstinence instead of condoms.
While transmission is indeed very low among heterosexuals and among gay men who are taking daily anti-viral medication and have undetectable viral loads, the scientists were quick to add that sex without a condom is still not a good idea because of the possibility of transmitting other sexually transmitted diseases. No one is suggesting that people should not practice safe sex, but it is important for the public to have a realistic idea about the odds.
On July 14, Google’s bio-lab began releasing the first batches of the 20 million bacteria-filled mosquitoes they plan to set free in the heart of California in an effort to shrink the population of mosquitoes that can carry life-threatening diseases.
The project, called Debug Fresno, is an initiative led by Verily Life Sciences, an offshoot of Google’s parent company Alphabet, in collaboration with MosquitoMate and Fresno County’s Consolidated Mosquito Abatement District.
According to the scientists, the goal of the project is to cut the population of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes — which are known for spreading Zika, dengue, and chikungunya. Over the course of 20 weeks, the company will release 1 million sterile, non-biting male mosquitoes in two 300-acre neighborhoods in Fresno County every week.
Releasing lab-bred mosquitoes into the wild
The mosquitoes being released are not genetically modified, though they are made in a lab. The male mosquitoes are bred by a robot and infected with Wolbachia, a bacterium that makes male mosquitoes sterile to any female that doesn’t have a Wolbachia infection herself. This makes it unable to successfully breed and will reduce the mosquito populations with every new generation.
During the experiment, Verily Life Sciences will monitor the population density and egg hatching among the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. These numbers will then be compared with the numbers from two control neighborhoods. The company expects to see a steep decline in the mosquito numbers in the target areas.
Though Debug Fresno will be the largest field study in the United States to employ this pest control method, it is not the first time Wolbachia infected mosquitoes are being released in the Fresno County area. In 2016, the Consolidated Mosquito Abatement District and MosquitoMate did a small-scale test experiment. Similar experiments have also been carried out, or are still ongoing, in Brazil, Vietnam, and Australia. If this large-scale trial is successful, a similar technique will be used around the globe to fight mosquitoes that transmit malaria or other mosquito-borne illnesses.
According to The Daily Mail Online, Verily isn’t the only company hoping to use robotics and artificial intelligence to help stop the spread of deadly diseases. In Texas, for instance, Microsoft is experimenting with a “smart trap” that can isolate and capture Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.
What could possibly go wrong?
Theoretically, Debug Fresno may sound like a normal, harmless experiment that could reduce the number of biting Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Fresno County. The project, however, has turned the area into a test facility without the consent of its residents.
“For the Debug team at Verily, moving our work from the laboratory to the field is not only an important milestone for our group of biologists, engineers, and automation experts, but it’s also a critical step in bringing our long-term vision to reality. Field studies allow us to test our discoveries and technologies in challenging, real-world conditions and collect the necessary evidence to bring them to a broader scale,” Verily noted on its website.
The Daily Coin, however, isn’t so sure about the company’s intention to release infected mosquitoes into the wild. Are these mosquitoes sorted correctly by gender and what if the Wolbachia mutates? If that happens we could have released something far worse than Zika into the world.
Furthermore, giving scientists the permission to conduct field studies without the permission of citizens is just criminal. Though this might be a rather harmless experiment, what will stop these researchers from turning our neighborhoods into test facilities for less innocent experiments that could feed the depopulation agenda of the elite?
It seems that more and more information continues to come to light regarding hacking — not just by your average hacker, but by the CIA and other government agencies, too.
Now, WikiLeaks documents have revealed how the CIA infected offline computers using air-gap hacking.
Air-gapping refers to a security measure that involves isolating a computer or network and preventing it from establishing an external connection. Being segregated in this way, devices cannot connect wirelessly or physically with other computers or network devices, making them virtually immune to remote hacking.
Classified military networks, the payment networks responsible for processing credit and debit card transactions for retailers, or industrial control systems that operate vital infrastructure — these are examples of networks that typically use air-gapping.
Maintaining security requires such networks to remain on internal networks that aren’t connected to the company’s business network. This ensures intruders can’t enter the corporate network by way of the Internet and weasel their way into sensitive systems.
But sometimes, as is being revealed by WikiLeaks, there’s a way around an air-gap. Wikileaks recently published a series of alleged CIA documents showing how the CIA’s malware was designed to infect these types of targets. The exposed documents reveal how the CIA has continued to develop its own hacking tools, apparently to get into devices such as smart TVs and Internet routers.
Called Brutal Kangaroo, the tool suite’s components consist of various components including: Drifting Deadline, a thumbdrive infection tool; Shattered Assurance, a server tool responsible for automated infection of USB drives), Broken Promise, a post processor that evaluates collected information; and Shadow, the main persistence mechanism.
“Brutal Kangaroo is a tool suite for targeting closed networks by air gap jumping using thumbdrives,” one of the documents notes. The 11 files in question come from the CIA’s Engineering Development Group, and allegedly span from 2012 t0 2016.
According to the documents, the CIA gets around air-gapped computers by first remotely installing a piece of malware on a system connected to the internet called the “primary host.” Next, an unaware user plugs the infected USB into an air-gapped computer unavailable to the CIA. The malware then works to send any data back to the CIA once it’s plugged into the primary host again.
We all put a price on our health, whether it’s our willingness to shell out a few extra dollars for organic fruit at the store or deciding that yoga classes are a good investment. However, have you ever thought about the opposite side of the coin? Would you accept a sizable sum of money to put your health at risk? That’s exactly what some Southampton University researchers are counting on.
In an effort to make an improved vaccine to “protect” vulnerable parties against whooping cough, the researchers are looking to pay people as much as £3,526 ($4499.33 at today’s exchange rate) to be infected with the disease and then live in isolation units for 17 days. This means that not only do volunteers get sick on purpose, but they also get to help create dangerous vaccines that parents will be strong-armed into giving their children for years to come. There’s not enough money in the world to convince some of us to take part in such a scheme, but they probably won’t have too much trouble getting enough people to sign up given the financial incentive.
Volunteers must be healthy individuals aged between 18 and 45. While some people will get sick, others won’t develop any symptoms at all after exposure as some people have a natural immunity to the infection. These silent carriers can still spread it to others, however. Such individuals are believed to have enough immunity to naturally fight the disease despite never having been vaccinated against it, and these are the people the scientists are most interested in studying.
Participants will have a private room with a bathroom and recreational area. Their meals and entertainment will be provided, and they will don masks when they interact with visitors and staff to avoid spreading infections. They will also be asked to supply nasal and throat swabs throughout the study, which will entail washing out their nostrils and placing pieces of filter paper inside their noses for several minutes at a time. Researchers concede it might a bit uncomfortable at times but claim it should not be painful or risky.
In addition, the volunteers must sit inside a small glass room known as the “cough box,” where they will be asked to cough, talk, and sing to create droplets of saliva in the air that researchers can sample. Psychological tests will be used to monitor their emotional well-being throughout the study. Finally, they’ll be given antibiotics to clear up any whooping cough infections they develop before they are sent back into the community.
Is whooping cough really as bad as vaccine pushers say?
This really begs the question: If whooping cough is truly the extremely dangerous disease that vaccine pushers would have us believe, how could such a trial be ethical? If suffering a bout of this illness – which they promise will be cured at the end of the study with a round of antibiotics – is only worth a few thousand dollars, room and board included for two and a half weeks, and it’s so easily cured with antibiotics, is it really something that everyone needs to be vaccinated against?
Not surprisingly, the human experiment is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If that doesn’t scare you, it should; Gates has said in the past that he wants to lower the world’s population to somehow slow climate change, and now it appears he’s willing to pay you to help him reach his goals.