COVID Corruption Media Articles
Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on COVID corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.
For further exploration, delve into our comprehensive Coronavirus Information Center.
Be aware: That COVID-19 test kit in your home could contain a toxic substance that may be harmful to your children and you. The substance is sodium azide, and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center's Drug and Poison Information Center has seen a surge in calls about exposures to the chemical since more people started self-testing for COVID-19 at home. Fifty million U.S. households have received some version of the test kits, although it's not clear how many contain sodium azide. The government has sent 200 million of the kits, with about 85% of initial orders filled. The chemical is colorless, tasteless and odorless, and it is mainly used in car airbags and as a pest control agent. Ingesting it can cause low blood pressure, which can result in dizziness, headaches or palpitations. Exposure to it can also cause skin, eye or nostril irritation. Large amounts of exposure to sodium azide can cause severe health threats, leading to convulsions, loss of consciousness, lung injury, respiratory failure leading to death, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention notes. "Sodium azide is a very potent poison, and ingestion of relatively low doses can cause significant toxicity," Poison Control said. "The extraction vials do look like small squeeze bottles. Some people may accidentally confuse them with medications." Several poison centers throughout the United States have reported sodium azide exposures from the COVID-19 test kits.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus and health from reliable major media sources.
For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public. When the C.D.C. published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots, because the first two doses already left them well-protected. The agency recently debuted a dashboard of wastewater data on its website that will be updated daily and might provide early signals of an oncoming surge of Covid cases. Some states and localities had been sharing wastewater information with the agency since the start of the pandemic, but it had never before released those findings. Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said. But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, [an] official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective. Experts dismissed the potential misuse or misinterpretation of data as an acceptable reason for not releasing it.
Note: Learn also about why Pfizer wanted to hide their COVID clinical data for 75 years. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Project Veritas released a video on Tuesday which allegedly shows an executive-level Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official admitting the Biden administration has plans to require yearly COVID shots "just like the flu shot." Christopher Cole, an executive officer for the FDA's Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMi), was apparently recorded on hidden camera by Project Veritas admitting "Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible." "You'll have to get an annual shot," Cole said on camera. "I mean, it hasn't been formally announced yet 'cause they don't want to, like, rile everyone up," he added. Cole said in the video his managerial role at the FDA's MCMi involves overseeing vaccines, vaccine approvals, and devices for vaccines, and noted his "office clears all the emergency approvals" for such counter measures. "There's almost a billion dollars a year going into FDA's budget from the people we regulate," Cole says in the Project Veritas video. "The drug companies, the food companies, the vaccine companies, they pay us hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire and keep the reviewers to approve their products. If they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company," Cole added, in reference to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Cole also expresses concern over the FDA's process to approve COVID-19 vaccines for young children between six months of age and four years old in the video.
Note: Explore hundreds of personal stories of severe vaccine injury and death that are being strongly suppressed by government and the major media. An MD's excellent research reveals that the government knew about and actively suppressed safe, effective, low-price treatments for COVID and targeted physicians who prescribed them. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Canadian pharmaceutical company SaNOtize Research & Development Corp., (SaNOtize), and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (Glenmark), a global, innovation-driven pharmaceutical company, today announced successful results of Phase 3 clinical trials and approval from India’s drug regulator for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19 who have a risk of progression of the disease. The study confirmed that SaNOtize’s Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS) represents a safe and effective antiviral treatment that shortens the course of COVID-19, and could prevent the transmission of COVID-19. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study ... NONS reduced the SARS-CoV-2 log viral load in COVID-19 patients by more than 94% within 24 hours of treatment, and by more than 99% in 48 hours as compared to saline control. Treatment also demonstrated ... a statistically significant greater proportion of patients who achieved a combination of clinical and virological cure, based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Progression Scale. Moreover, the median time to negative PCR, in this group, was 4 days in the treatment group compared with 8 days in the control. Test subjects included patients infected with different variants, likely including Delta and Omicron. There were no significant adverse health events recorded. The reduction in log viral load corroborates the reduction of viral load in the UK Phase 2 trials (a reduction of 95% in 24 hours and 99% in 72 hours), conducted in March 2021.
Note: Why isn’t this getting major attention in the media? Could it be because big Pharma will lose billions of dollars if this goes global? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
A foundation representing the vaccine maker BioNTech has been accused of seeking to undermine the World Health Organization’s initiative to bring covid vaccine manufacturing to the African continent. The kENUP Foundation, a consultancy hired by BioNTech, has claimed that WHO’s hub, which is creating a covid-19 mRNA vaccine that African companies can make, is unlikely to be successful and will infringe on patents, documents obtained by The BMJ have shown. Instead, they show kENUP promoting BioNTech’s proposal to ship mRNA factories housed in sea containers from Europe to Africa, initially staffed with BioNTech workers, and a proposed new regulatory pathway to approve the vaccines made in these factories. The novel pathway has been described as paternalistic and unworkable. The move threatens the pan-African venture backed by WHO that seeks to scale up African production of lifesaving vaccines from 1% to 60% by 2040. WHO’s technology transfer hub, launched in June 2021 and based in South Africa, uses publicly available information to recreate Moderna’s vaccine, to teach companies and scientists across the continent how to use mRNA technology. It will then develop a comparable vaccine, which, if successful in clinical trials and approved by regulators, it will manufacture industrially. In a document sent to South African government officials after a visit to the country on 11-14 August last year, the kENUP Foundation said that the hub’s activity should be stopped.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines and Big Pharma profiteering from reliable major media sources
Pfizer made nearly $37bn (£27bn) in sales from its Covid-19 vaccine last year – making it one of the most lucrative products in history – and has forecast another bumper year in 2022, with a big boost coming from its Covid-19 pill Paxlovid. The US drugmaker’s overall revenues in 2021 doubled to $81.3bn. The bumper sales prompted accusations from campaigners of “pandemic profiteering”. The group Global Justice Now said the annual revenue of $81bn was more than the GDP of most countries. Pharmaceutical companies have been accused of not sharing the recipe for their vaccines, which would enable drugmakers in poorer countries to produce cheaper versions of them. Global Justice Now pointed out that Pfizer’s Covid-19 jab was invented by BioNTech, supported by €100m (£84m) in debt financing from the publicly owned European Investment Bank and a €375m grant from the German government. Tim Bierley, a pharma campaigner at the group, said: “The development of mRNA vaccines should have revolutionised the global Covid response. “But we’ve let Pfizer withhold this essential medical innovation from much of the world, all while ripping off public health systems.” According to Reuters, Pfizer has sold the vaccine to African countries at $3 to $10 a shot. It has indicated that a non-profit dose costs just $6.75, or £4.98, to produce, but it has reportedly charged the NHS £18 a dose for the first 100m jabs bought and £22 a dose for the next 89m, totalling £3.76bn ... amounting to an eye-watering 299% mark-up.
Note: If big Pharma really cared about public healthy, don’t you think they’d be willing to sacrifice some of their huge profits and charge much less for their injections? Unfortunately, it’s the old story of the rich get richer and the rest are left behind. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on Big Pharma profiteering from reliable major media sources.
Two weeks ago, state Sen. Richard Pan introduced a new bill which would require all children K-12 to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to attend school in person after Jan. 1, 2023. Unvaccinated children would be forced into remote learning. Pan said, “We need to make sure schools are safe so that all parents are comfortable sending their children to school.” Every parent wants safe schools. But our children deserve medical care driven by facts, not politics. As physician epidemiologists, we have analyzed the data and found that this mandate is not supported by the scientific evidence — which is why no European countries or other U.S. states have implemented their own. California already has a mandate for children over 12, which will be triggered once the vaccines receive full approval. Pan’s bill would go much further, requiring every child in K-12 to be vaccinated while the shots are still under emergency use authorization. Excluding unvaccinated children from in-person learning would come at an enormous cost, at a time when they should be catching up on critical academic and social experiences. In December, when the Los Angeles Unified School District tried to implement a K-12 COVID-19 vaccine mandate, they found that 30,000 students ages 12 and older hadn’t met the mandate requirements. If we extrapolate those numbers to the entire state, and take into account lower vaccination rates among children ages 5-11, over a million California children could be forced into remote learning.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
From the western province of Alberta, moving east to Quebec City, and in cities and towns in between, thousands of Canadians have hit the streets in trucks, tractors, cars and on foot to protest the nation's Covid-19 restrictions. With persistent and noisy horn honking, protesters are demanding governments at all levels lift their health restrictions, including vaccine and mask mandates, lockdowns and restrictions on businesses and gatherings. "The whole event has gone beyond just vaccines and it is now about the entire ordeal," protester James MacDonald told CNN, adding he's been in Ottawa since last weekend and has no intention of leaving until health measures are dropped. The "Freedom Convoy" was initially started by truckers protesting a recent mandate requiring drivers entering Canada to be fully vaccinated or face testing and quarantine requirements. But others have joined the cause. Demonstrators reached Ottawa, Canada's capital, last weekend, and its organizers said the protests will linger there and elsewhere if necessary. While mostly nonviolent, the protests have been noisy and chaotic. In Toronto, Canada's largest city, thousands took to the streets Saturday. Quebec City similarly reported thousands of protesters and hundreds of trucks clogging streets. While the protests were started by truckers, those who have joined them and donated money include many who said they are vaccinated and have so far complied with public health measures.
Note: Notice how little coverage this is getting in the U.S. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
When the COVID outbreak began in early 2020, a number of studies predicted that government-imposed lockdowns would prove highly effective in preventing deaths. A widely cited epidemiological paper by researchers at Imperial College London predicted that such measures as bans on travel and shelter-in-place mandates would reduce mortality from the virus by 98%. But now, a new analysis by three prominent economists that surveys all empirical data from the academic literature measuring the relationship between death and lockdowns finds that forced restrictions didn’t work. Their conclusion: Lockdowns reduced mortalities by a minuscule 0.2%. The study defines lockdowns as “compulsory non-pharmaceutical interventions,” or what’s commonly known as NPIs. They include restrictions on travel, school closures, bans on international travel, restrictions on movement within a country’s borders, and mask mandates. The authors note that lockdowns were virtually universal. Of the 186 nations followed by the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, all but one - the Indian Ocean island nation of Comoros - imposed at least one NPI by the end of March 2020. The U.S. paid a huge price in lost jobs, businesses that never reopened, and kids deprived of going to school - not to mention the deep malaise that caused a pandemic of suicides. The world’s citizens left to their own devices would have handled the pandemic better, and ... fewer lives would perhaps have been lost with no lockdowns at all.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to a controversial meta-analysis of dozens of studies. A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths. Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.” Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counterproductive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted in the non-peer-reviewed preprint. “While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics. In fact, the early lockdowns “have had devastating effects,” the authors insisted. “They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the damning report insisted. “Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors said of the “ill-founded” measures.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
The original coronavirus lockdowns had 'little to no' effect on pandemic death tolls in the US, UK and Europe, a controversial report suggests. Economists who carried out a meta-analysis found draconian restrictions imposed in spring 2020 — including stay-at-home orders, compulsory masks and social distancing — only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 per cent. They warned that lockdowns caused 'enormous economic and social costs' and concluded they were 'ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument' going forward. The review, led by a Johns Hopkins University professor, argued that border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality, reducing deaths by just 0.1 per cent. There has been a growing consensus that draconian restrictions have led to a rise in non-Covid deaths, thought to be people whose conditions worsened during the pandemic when they could not access healthcare. In the latest report, the researchers admit their review does not answer 'why' lockdowns didn't achieve their ultimate goal in saving lives but they float a number of explanations. They claimed the best explanation for differing Covid death rates in countries was 'differences in population age and health' and the 'quality of the health sector. But they could not rule out 'less obvious factors, such as culture, communication, and coincidences'. Covid deaths are also skewed by the volume of testing each country carries out, which many scientists have highlighted as the driving factor behind Britain's large toll.
Note: Why did other major media completely ignore this vitally important news? You can find this critical study on the Johns Hopkins University website at this link. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Lockdowns during the first COVID-19 wave in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by .2% in the U.S. and Europe, according to a Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies. "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument." The researchers – Johns Hopkins University economics professor Steve Hanke, Lund University economics professor Lars Jonung, and special advisor at Copenhagen's Center for Political Studies Jonas Herby – analyzed the effects of lockdown measures such as school shutdowns, business closures, and mask mandates on COVID-19 deaths. "We find little to no evidence that mandated lockdowns in Europe and the United States had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality rates," the researchers wrote. The researchers also examined shelter-in-place orders, finding that they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%. Studies that looked at only shelter-in-place orders found they reduced COVID-19 mortality by 5.1%, but studies that looked at shelter-in-place orders along with other lockdown measures found that shelter-in-place orders actually increased COVID-19 mortality by 2.8%. The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality.
Note: Why did other major media platforms overlook this vitally important news? You can find this critical study on the Johns Hopkins University website at this link. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
At this point, one thing about the pandemic is clear: The COVID-19 vaccines, even when followed by a booster, aren't going to stop the coronavirus — or provide long-term protection from infections. Right after the third shot — the booster — antibodies rise up quickly. But then about a month later, they begin to decline. As a result, protection against infection drops down to about 50% three months later. So the question is: Should you get a fourth dose to beef up protection again? A preliminary study from Israel ... suggests that for the general population, the answer is likely no. A fourth shot of the same vaccine — in this case Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna — offered very little extra protection against infection compared with only three shots. "Not a third dose, not a fourth dose, not a fifth dose will do anything to stop infections [long term]," says Dr. Gili Regev-Yochay, an infectious disease specialist at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel, and lead author of the new study. Regev-Yochay and her team gave about 300 health care workers a fourth shot, either Pfizer or Moderna. And then they looked to see if those people were less likely to become infected while working at Sheba Medical Center, compared with about 400 health care workers who had received only three shots. The extra dose reduced the risk of an infection by only about 10% to 30%, Regev-Yochay and her team report. The extra dose also didn't appear to activate T cells, which are critical for clearing out a future infection.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Massachusetts health officials on Tuesday reported ... 290 more deaths in people with breakthrough cases. In the last week, 27,530 new breakthrough cases - infections in people who have been vaccinated - were reported, with 555 more vaccinated people hospitalized over the period. It's a 40% drop in the rate of new breakthrough cases in Massachusetts - the previous week saw 46,092 new COVID infections in vaccinated people. On Tuesday ... there were 127 new deaths reported -- a statistic that includes three days because of the weekend -- bringing the death toll to 21,546. The seven-day average test positivity stands at 7.13%. In December, Massachusetts Department of Public Health officials released a study that found that 97% of breakthrough cases in the state did not become severely ill and rarely led to deaths, especially among young people. Massachusetts' COVID metrics, tracked on the Department of Public Health's interactive coronavirus dashboard, have been trending downward after spiking to heights not seen since previous surges, a peak thought to be driven at least in part by the omicron variant.
Note: As of Jan. 31, 2022, Massachusetts had a total of 21,546 COVID deaths as reported above. Their first COVID death was on Mar. 20, 2020. So over the 97 weeks since the start of the pandemic, they averaged 222 deaths a week. Yet in the last week of January 2022, this NBC article reports 290 breakthrough deaths. So the number of deaths among the vaccinated in that one week was greater than the average weekly number of deaths for the whole pandemic. Weren't these vaccines supposed to be 90% effective or more?
In the early days of the COVID pandemic, Cuba decided it was going to make its own vaccine. It didn't want to rely on the whims of foreign governments or international pharmaceutical companies to immunize its people. Cuba didn't even sign up for the COVAX program, backed by the World Health Organization, that was promising to purchase vaccines in bulk and distribute them equitably around the globe. Cuba's vaccine development effort wasn't just risky from health perspective. Politically if the rest of the world got vaccine far earlier than Cuba, it would be a huge blow to the government. Cuba now has five vaccines in various stages. Three of the vaccines, Soberana 1, Soberana 2 and Soberna Plus, were developed at the Finlay Institute in Havana. The other two, Abdala and Mambisa, came out of Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Soberana 2, Soberana Plus and Abdala are authorized by the Cuban authorities for use and export while the other two (one of which is a nasal spray) are still in clinical trials. None of them have yet been authorized by the World Health Organization or any other major international regulator. But they've allowed Cuba to boast one of the highest COVID vaccination rates in the world. More than 85% of the island nation is fully immunized against the virus — a far higher vaccination rate than the U.S.. At a time when many other low- and middle-income nations continue to struggle to get enough doses, Cuba is exporting vaccine to Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua and Vietnam.
Note: These vaccines do not rely on the mRNA technology about whose long-term side effects we know little to nothing. In deaths per million from COVID, Cuba is ranked #71 out of 155 countries as of early February 2022. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Here in California, our children continue to navigate the most restrictive policies in the country, in many cases not even allowing them to remove their masks while outdoors at school. There are now calls ... to exchange their cloth masks for thicker, larger and tighter N95/KN95 masks. The World Health Organization does not recommend the routine masking of young children at all, let alone the proposition that tight-fitting respirators should be donned by children for multiple hours a day. Yet we have come to view this as appropriate and necessary in California, despite our high levels of protection from serious COVID-19 illness given widespread vaccine uptake. Our government leaders made an implicit promise that the vaccination of adults and children would be the conduit by which our society would return to pre-pandemic freedoms. Despite a highly successful vaccination campaign in the Bay Area, most COVID-19 restrictions have remained in place for two years and counting. And despite widespread access to vaccines, we continue to prioritize the prevention of COVID-19 transmission, even in the absence of severe illness, above most other health considerations. Last week, we began an online petition asking California officials to immediately shift our public dialogue toward defining a path for removing all remaining COVID-19 restrictions in public schools. Despite the pushback we have received, normalizing our school environment is not a radical concept.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies. "We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality," the researchers wrote. But the research paper said lockdowns did have "devastating effects" on the economy and contributed to numerous social ills. "They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy," the report said. "Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument," the paper concluded. Early on, many states and 186 countries imposed bans on work, socialization, in-person schooling, travel and other restrictions to limit the spread of the disease, citing recommendations by top health care experts. Researchers at the Imperial College London, for example, predicted that such steps could reduce death rates by up to 98%. That never happened, according to the new study by researchers Steve Hanke, Jonas Herby, and Lars Jonung at Johns Hopkins.
Note: Why did other major media platforms overlook this vitally important news? You can find this critical study on the Johns Hopkins University website at this link. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Organizers of a demonstration protesting vaccine mandates outside Canada's Parliament have reportedly said they have enough money to keep trucks there for up to four years. Thousands of protesters converged on Parliament Hill in Ottawa over the weekend, joined by truckers who had traveled across Canada as part of a "Freedom Convoy." Although initially organized to oppose vaccine mandates for truck drivers crossing the Canada-U.S. border, it has grown in recent days into a movement against COVID-19 restrictions in general, and Justin Trudeau's government. The demonstration in Ottawa on Saturday saw truckers block the streets around Canada's parliament building. It comes as a GoFundMe campaign called "Freedom Convoy 2022" surpassed more than $7.1 million ($9.1 million CAD) in donations. Ottawa Police said on Sunday that officers have been "actively and patiently managing a well-funded, major demonstration in the downtown core" and that there had been "multiple cases of disruptive, inappropriate and threatening behavior from demonstrators." Police "are aware that many demonstrators have announced their intention to stay in place," the statement added. "This will continue to cause major traffic, noise and safety issues in the downtown core. We urge all residents to avoid travel to the core." Trudeau and his family left their home in Ottawa over security concerns. The Canadian leader has called the protesters a "small fringe minority."
Note: GoFundMe stopped donations to the group and Facebook removed the Freedom Convoy page. What gives them the right to do this? And if you look at MSM reporting, the vast majority of report put a negative spin on this. And you can bet that agent provocateurs have been sent to cause trouble then blamed on the protest. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
A convoy of big rigs has arrived in the national capital to protest vaccine mandates and Covid-19 measures. It's been dubbed the Freedom Convoy. The movement was sparked by a vaccine mandate for truckers crossing the US-Canada border, implemented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government earlier this month. Upset with the new measure that would require unvaccinated Canadian truckers crossing the two nations' boundary to quarantine once they've returned home, a loose coalition of truckers and conservative groups began to organise the cross-country drive that began in western Canada. It picked up steam and gathered support as it drove east. Many supporters, already opposed to Mr Trudeau and his politics, have grown frustrated with pandemic measures they see as political overreach. Social media and news footage showed trucks and companion vehicles snaking along highways, cheered on by people gathered on roadsides and overpasses, often waving Canadian flags and signs disparaging Mr Trudeau. A GoFundMe campaign has raised, to date, over a whopping C$7m ($5.4m; £4m) from over 99,000 donors. "We want to be free, we want to have our choice again, and we want hope - and the government has taken that away," Harold Jonker, a truck driver and trucking company owner, told the BBC. Mr Trudeau this week denounced the convoy and its supporters as a "small fringe minority". But the convoy has received some support from Conservative politicians.
Note: If you look at MSM reporting, the vast majority of report put a negative spin on this. And you can bet that agent provocateurs have been sent to cause trouble then blamed on the protest. Facebook removed the Freedom Convoy page while GoFundMe stopped donations to the group. What gives them the right to do this? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Since the start of the pandemic, childcare costs have gone through the roof. Across the U.S., parents are seeing an average annual cost increase of 41% for center-based childcare providers, and spending an average of $14,117 annually, up from $9,977 pre-pandemic, according to data from a recent LendingTree report. Households with children younger than 5 were hit hardest by these increases, the report found. Since the pandemic began, center-based care providers for 3- and 4-year-olds have seen their annual costs increase by 57%. Costs for center-based care providers for kids under 2 grew by 37%. Care providers for 3- and 4-year-olds in Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana saw the biggest jump in expenses, with an annual average increase of at least 144%. As for the direct impact on households, Indiana families with kids under 5 put the biggest chunk of their income—20%—toward childcare, with the average family spending $11,212 a year. Vermont families are close behind, with 19% of their paycheck—an average of $13,538 annually—going toward childcare. Families in New Jersey, Mississippi, Kentucky, Texas, and North Dakota pay the lowest portion, at 11%. But they may also be seeing a jump in their costs in the near future; in each of those states, the average care center saw its expenses increase by over 50% during the pandemic. The bulk of the increased costs stems from staffing, which the Center for American Progress says makes up 70% of a childcare provider’s total budget.
Note: Note that this major increase in childcare cost was caused not directly by the pandemic, but more by the isolation of the lockdown measures instituted. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
Important Note: Explore our full index to key excerpts of revealing major media news articles on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.
