What do you think?

'This has got to stop'

Column SFF Bestiary Up Close With Predators: Ocean Ramsey’s Shark Whisperer A documentary that seeks to rehab the image of “killer” sharks… By Judith Tarr | Published on October 27, 2025 Credit: Netflix Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Netflix Ocean Ramsey’s life is sharks. It’s who she is, what she does, and why she does it. With her partner and photographer Juan Oliphant, she’s dedicated her life to changing the way the world perceives sharks. They declare, in so many words, that they set out to be the Anti-Jaws. Their Netflix documentary, just released this year, tells their story, centering around Ocean’s life and passion for sharks. It aims to be balanced in that it provides alternative viewpoints and touches on the controversy around Ocean’s thousands of hours spent swimming with sharks. No cage. No barricade of any kind. And much of the time, no air tank, either. She free dives. She has, over the years, trained herself to hold her breath for up to six and a half minutes. This allows her to present herself as a fellow fish, without the distraction of breathing equipment. This isn’t a vanity project (though some of the controversy alleges that it is). She has a clear goal, to advocate for shark conservation around the world. One of the main story lines of the documentary is her campaign to protect sharks in her home state of Hawaii, lobbying for legislation to make it illegal to harm or kill a shark. There’s a strong environmental reason for this. Sharks are essential to the health of the ocean. As marine biologist Kim Holland points out, if you take out sharks, you get a ripple effect down through the rest of the ocean. We need the ocean, and the ocean needs its apex predators. Between 70 and 100 million sharks are killed every year. Ocean’s goal is to reduce that number to zero. She has a long way to go, but she starts by setting out to prove to the world that sharks are not monsters. Shark attacks, as I’ve noted elsewhere, are actually quite rare. The documentary notes that if sharks really were out to get humans, swimmers and surfers and kayakers wouldn’t just be bitten, they would disappear. And they would do so in large numbers. What’s happening is that sharks are mistaking humans for their usual prey. If you thrash and splash, you read to a hunting shark as a fish. The shark picks up the vibration, homes in, and boom. Over and over again, people who have been attacked say, “It came out of nowhere. I never saw it coming. All of a sudden, my leg/arm/body was inside a shark.” That’s a big part of why people are so afraid of sharks. It’s random. It’s unexpected. It’s the biggest jump scare there is. And then, because that’s how fear works, it gets blown out of all proportion. The legend grows. The terror mounts. Whole beaches full of tourists are afraid to go in the water. Ocean Ramsey sets out to be the antidote to that. She meets the sharks in their own domain, on their own terms. “But aren’t you afraid you’ll get eaten?” her social-media followers (and interviewers and opinion columnists) ask her. Her answer is No. Is it dangerous? Yes. Any human who comes into close contact with another apex predator has to face up to the fact that we may be the apex of the apex, but it’s not because we’re physically stronger or faster. By ourselves we’re small, weak, and slow. What we have is our intelligence, and we can use that to connect with the predator. Could a shark turn on her at some point? Yes. As with every other naturalist/media star who engages with major predators, she runs that risk every time she goes in the water. But if it happens, she says, “Don’t blame the shark.” In the meantime, she has been studying sharks since the early 2000s, particularly tiger sharks off the North Shore of O’ahu, Hawaii. Great whites may be the main monster of myth and legend, thanks to Jaws, but in Hawaii, the real fear is of these somewhat smaller, lightning-fast, powerful hunters. It’s actually a tiger shark who first gets accused of taking the first victim in Jaws, until the real perpetrator shows up and starts terrorizing the human population. Ocean, beautifully filmed and accompanied by Juan, began her study in 2007. She identified multiple individuals, recording their behavior, coming to understand their language. It’s not a language of sounds, as far as she observes in the documentary. The communications she observes are visual. Her inspiration for her observations is a study she read when she was younger, about the way bees communicate. She sees in sharks a similar kind of interaction, a dance in three dimensions. They are not swimming at random. They’re communicating through movement, through position in the water: what she calls patterns of social hierarchy. Where they are in relation to each other is significant. If they’re parallel, if one is higher, if one shows its underside. Lowered pectoral fins are a threat display—“Go ahead, come at me.” These signals can be subtle, and sharks with their big brains have the capacity recognize small nuances. Ocean has learned from them to control her body in extremely precise ways. If she’s tense, if she’s off, they pick it up. She has to cultivate muscle-deep calm. She has to be keenly aware of where everyone is at all times, and she has to keep careful track of their moods. Sharks are super fast and super strong. That’s where “it came out of nowhere” comes from. Free diving allows her to be more agile than if she were carrying breathing equipment. She can interact with sharks as if she were one of them. She swims like a dolphin or a mermaid, rather than with the separate flipper strokes we more often see in divers. She uses her body as a shark will, as much as human anatomy will allow. She is right there with them, in physical contact. There’s a rule: lock the elbow. If the shark moves in, keep it literally at arm’s length—unless it’s very clear that the shark is inviting her to come in closer. She comes to know individual sharks, and they seem to recognize her as well. There’s more to this than scientific identification, though that’s important. It’s a way to make the shark accessible to humans who are watching these videos. If you name a thing, you connect with it. You start to understand it. It’s not a monster anymore. Nikki, Riley (aka Koa or Warrior), young Kalihi who seems to study Ocean as Ocean studies her, and most poignant of all, Roxy with her broken jaw and her tragic story—we get to know them in some small way as Ocean and Juan know them. We see past the big pointy teeth and the killer-shark mythos to the individual. We start to understand that this, however alien, is a person. As fascinating as tiger sharks are, Ocean realizes that she needs to aim literally for a bigger fish if she wants to bring large numbers of people on board her campaign to protect sharks. That means the great white, which is rare in Hawaii—the unicorn of the ocean. She travels to Guadalupe, Mexico, where great whites are known to congregate. She starts with a cage there, because she may be at ease with tiger sharks after years of swimming with them, but these sharks don’t know her and she doesn’t know them. She gets what she came for. The dominant great white in that part of the world comes up to the cage. She seems curious. Her eye is open. It almost feels like an invitation. Ocean leaves the cage. She swims with the shark. Juan records the meeting, the slender woman with her hand on the shark’s fin, skimming along with her. (In shark world, the dominant individual swims above. It’s not coercion; the shark could turn at any moment and place herself on top. Or simply shake the human off, and leave her far behind.) That’s the point at which the narrative changed. The footage went viral. Ocean had her defining image, her anti-Jaws moment. Images have power. Visuals sell not just products but ideas. Humans believe in what they see. If they see a shark and a human swimming together without conflict, they start to lose their fear. They begin to understand. The film is careful not to let this get out of hand. Basically it adds up to Professional Driver, Closed Course, Do Not Try This At Home. Or as the National Parks Service warns about another large and emphatically not tame animal, Don’t Pet the Fluffy Cows. No, a shark is not a monster. Yes, it can be dangerous. Be very, very respectful, and only try what Ocean does if you’ve spent as long as she has studying sharks in their native environment. The documentary has some amazing moments. Aside from Roxy’s story, I’ll long remember what happened after the trip to Guadalupe, sometime around 2019, when a deceased sperm whale fetches up on a Hawaiian reef. Ocean and Juan went out there to study tiger sharks feeding on the huge carcass. While they were watching, the tiger sharks disappeared. The ocean went quiet. They heard little dolphin noises, but nothing else. Then out of the depths it came: a great white shark. A good twenty feet long, Ocean says, and massive. She tears at the whale in an ecstasy of hunger, paying no attention to the humans (and that, it’s implied, is emblematic of how sharks really are—they’re not going to eat you unless they mistake you for something else). I wonder if she’s pregnant, because she’s not shaped like the other sharks in the film. Her midsection is extremely round. It’s not mentioned or explained, but it would be amazing if she’s filling up on fuel to gestate her babies. It’s an incredible sequence. The beauty and terror of the animal, the way the ocean goes still as she comes, the power she has—it’s all there. But so is her vulnerability. Human fear, human hostility, human greed, are a clear and present threat to all species of sharks. We need to protect them; we have to stop killing them by the millions every year. The ocean needs them, and we need the ocean. We can’t live without each other.[end-mark] The post Up Close With Predators: Ocean Ramsey’s <i>Shark Whisperer</i> appeared first on Reactor.

On Oct. 10, President Donald Trump’s physician, Dr. Sean P. Barbabella, announced that after conducting a battery of tests, he found that the president “remains in exceptional health” and that he had received “immunizations, including annual influenza and updated COVID 19 booster vaccinations.” It’s likely the president received one of the mRNA shots from Pfizer. Figure 1: Letter from Trump’s personal physician Trump—perhaps the busiest man on the planet—can’t be expected to do a deep dive on the epidemiology, safety, and efficacy of these shots. Like most patients, he had no choice but to trust the experts. That policy makes sense when the experts are trustworthy and follow the evidence. Unfortunately, when it comes to public health, and to the COVID-19 mandates in particular, trust in public health agencies and health care professionals has been shattered beyond recognition.  So much of what people think they know about America’s drugs and approvals just isn’t so. As a result, we doubt the President of the United States received a full disclosure of the available data so he could weigh the risks versus the benefits of mRNA COVID shots. To exercise truly informed consent, he would have needed to know at least the following. It’s October 2025. Deadly variants of COVID are long extinct and extremely unlikely to emerge without human engineering. (Of course, some people still die from COVID, just as some people die from the common cold. But we don’t view the common cold as a deadly disease.) This has been the case since the emergence of the Omicron variant in late 2021, according to a landmark meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.  The president, according to his physician, “remains in exceptional health.” In layman’s terms this means that if the president were to catch the flu or COVID again (he has had COVID at least once), it would be mild. He could easily treat it with very safe drugs such as ivermectin and the hydroxychloroquine that he correctly advocated, and stockpiled, along with dozens of other repurposed, inexpensive treatments for COVID proven to be safe and effective as the peer-reviewed literature has clearly outlined:  COVID viruses mutate too quickly to be stopped by any mass-produced “vaccine.” Manufacturers knew from the start that with COVID’s high rate of mutation, mRNA shots would have to be produced and administered at least once a month, lest they become irrelevant due to mutations. Researchers from the Universities of Bath and Edinburgh found that COVID mutates as quickly as every two weeks. That means Trump’s monovalent injection developed in late 2024 and early 2025 could already have been outdated.  Even if they were given as a monthly booster, these shots don’t do what a “vaccine” is supposed to do; they have not been shown to prevent spread or transmission of COVID-19.   There’s no reputable evidence to show that mRNA COVID shots minimize serious disease and may have caused harm; by the end of 2022, the majority of COVID-19 deaths were in vaccinated/boosted individuals. The Risks of mRNA COVID Shots So much for the benefits. What about the risks? In the FDA VAERS database, there are over one million adverse event reports from COVID mRNA shots in the United States alone, which include tens of thousands of reports of: deaths, permanent disability, ER visits, and severe allergic reactions. Even worse: The VAERS surveillance database only represent low, single-digit percentages of the actual number of adverse effects that actually occur.  Figure 2: August 2025 reports form VAERS showing the number of adverse events associated with COVID mRNA vaccines in the USA alone. various sources indicate that this voluntarily reports only represent the low single digit percentage of adverse events that occur in reality. Pharma companies misled us in 2020-21 when they claimed the spike proteins produced by the mRNA shots stay confined in the injection site and last only a few days. The Infectious Disease Society of America states that the spike proteins generated by COVID-19 vaccines last “up to a few weeks” in the body. Other publications show evidence that the highly complex mRNA products and ingredients remain in the body for years, wreaking long-lasting havoc on health.   Although ubiquitously labeled “vaccines,” the definition of “vaccine” had to be altered, to accommodate the inclusion of mRNA injections. Prior to the definition change of vaccines, COVID-19 mRNA injections would have fallen under the definition of gene therapy.  The fully synthetic lipid nanoparticles that accompany mRNA injections have not had their structures or exact doses disclosed.  Although we know how much to inject (3 ml), Americans still don’t know how many nucleotide strands or lipid nanoparticles are in that volume of liquid. In addition to the number of nucleotide strands in mRNA injections, the manufacturers have never shared the precise mRNA sequences or the lipid nanoparticle structures that must accompany the mRNA. Americans still do not have full transparency on COVID mRNA shot ingredients.  The FDA heavily redacted the manufacturer’s instructions on how to analyze the mRNA vaccines for quality control/assurance. Consider, for instance, a single redacted page in a longer FDA regulatory summary (shown below). This is part of a 127-page document on how to evaluate the purity, concentration, and other analytical measures of mRNA injections. Only 63 pages have been shared, and of those 63 pages, around 50% has been redacted. Figure 3: Want to analyze the quantity and ingredients in your mRNA COVID shot? Here is one page of the 63 of 127 pages that was not totally redacted the FDA has selected to share about how to do that. Furthermore, the FDA does not release the results of its quality control testing to verify the ingredients of the mRNA shots.   DNA contamination has been reported with COVID shots—contamination that could interfere with a healthy person’s ability to fight cancer. A population cohort study from August of 2025, which reported increased cancer risks following COVID-19 vaccination? In Italy, nearly 300,000 residents were tracked for 30 months, showing that mRNA shots boosted the risk of overall cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, and colorectal cancer.  A confirmatory, second, larger study was published in late September 2025 out of Korea examined data from 2021—2023. It found that after correcting for age, sex, comorbidities, income level, and prior COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 vaccination was linked to serious increases in multiple major cancers (in line with reports of DNA contamination). This signal was consistent across all vaccine platforms and age groups and both sexes. It involved a cohort of 8.4 million adults and found increased risk of six major cancers: lung, prostate, thyroid, gastric, colorectal, and breast cancers. Another Oct. 5, 2025, paper shows a Stage IV bladder cancer patient who received a COVID-19 mRNA shot, had a vaccine-derived spike gene sequence fused into the patient’s chromosome. The patient was a previously healthy 31-year-old woman who developed rapidly progressive stage IV bladder cancer within 12 months of completing a three-dose Moderna mRNA injection series. This suggests that mRNA injections can integrate into a patient’s DNA and cause devastating damage.  A new analysis of CDC data shows children born in the years following mass mRNA vaccination of mothers (including pregnant mothers) are dying at a 77% relatively higher rate. Again, this implies that the shots,(contrary to advertising), can integrate and damage the recipient’s DNA.  In other words, despite propaganda from the University of California, San Francisco and “famous” “Twitter doctors” these shots don’t “stay in your arm” are dangerous to a developing fetus, and can damage your DNA. Long story short: The mRNA shots are far riskier and have far fewer net benefits than the public was led to believe. What’s more, both the FDA and the drug companies have chosen, over and over again, a policy opacity over transparency. Of course, it’s impractical for a pharmacist or physician to read out every single side effect of every single drug, but COVID mRNA shots are a special case. Unlike every other product on the market, vaccine recipients can’t sue vaccine manufacturers in case of injury or death. Add to that the profound lack of transparency on some the most basic ingredients of these new and experimental drugs. In light of these facts, providers have a duty to fully inform patients of risks and benefits.  (In fact, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 1993 seem to require this.) On Sept. 1, Trump said over Truth Social media that he wants to know if drug companies are telling him the truth about the mRNA shots. We hope someone in the president’s circle will tell him. Trump says Drug companies should be releasing data to prove their COVID vaccines are effective: “With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW.” pic.twitter.com/CA2GDvFlRF— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 1, 2025 The post Why Did President Trump Get an mRNA COVID-19 Shot?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump named two members of his Cabinet as an unbeatable duo in the 2028 presidential election. When asked by a reporter on Air Force One Monday morning if he would run in 2028, Trump said, “We have great people.” “One of them is standing right here,” he said, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “We have JD [Vance], obviously. The Vice President is great. Marco is great, I think. I’m not sure if anybody would run against those. I think if they ever formed a group, it would be unstoppable.” Trump said he “hasn’t really thought about” running again. “We have some really good people,” he said. The remarks came amid claims from MAGA podcaster and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon that “there is a plan” for Trump to run for a third term. (Even though the 22nd Amendment blocks a president from running for a third term.) “I would love to do it—I have the best numbers ever,” Trump said in response to Bannon. But the president ruled out the idea of running as Vance’s vice president. “You’d be allowed to do that, but I wouldn’t do that,” he said. “I think it’s too cute.” The post These Two Officials Would Make an Unstoppable Presidential Ticket, Trump Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New Jersey’s largest teachers union, which has endorsed Democrat governor candidate Mikie Sherrill, will host a drag queen event days after the November election. The New Jersey Education Association, which has 200,000 members as the Garden State’s chapter of the National Education Association, will host its annual convention on Nov. 6 and 7, two days after the gubernatorial election. At the convention, the NJEA Consortium—a union project undertaken with education and “social justice” organizations—will host a Friday event called “Drag is Not a Crime: The Past, Present, and Future of Drag.” The convention’s floor plan also includes a booth dedicated to the drag theme. The NJEA convention theme puts “learning” third—after “equity” and “justice.” Screenshot The NJEA’s 125-member PAC Operating Committee unanimously endorsed Sherrill in September. Sherrill, a former naval officer and prosecutor currently serving in Congress, met with the PAC’s steering committee, while her Republican opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, did not. The NJEA’s support for transgender ideology echoes Sherrill’s voting record in Congress. Ciattarelli has condemned Sherrill for supporting “boys in girls sports,” and she has reportedly been silent on the issue while on the campaign trail. Yet Sherrill repeatedly voted for legislation that would require schools and other institutions to allow boys to compete in girls’ sports and against legislation that would prevent it. Sherrill co-sponsored H.R. 5, “The Equality Act,” would would amend federal civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” She repeatedly voted for the measure, which would have forced schools to allow boys to compete in girls’ sports. She also co-sponsored a resolution calling for a “Transgender Bill of Rights” that endorsed controversial medical interventions euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care” and that expressed support for allowing boys in girls’ sports and girls’ bathrooms. She also repeatedly voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would have prevented boys from competing in girls’ sports. The Sherrill campaign did not respond to The Daily Wire’s request for comment about the NJEA drag event. “Drag might not be a crime, but looking the other way while 80% of third graders in some of New Jersey’s schools can’t read at grade level should be,” a Ciattarelli campaign strategist told the Wire. “The NJEA and far-left politicians like Mikie Sherrill could care less about education or teachers,” the strategist added. “The NJEA’s core mission is preserving political power, pushing an extreme ‘woke’ agenda on young children, and propping up out-of-touch politicians like Mikie Sherrill who vote against parental rights.” Both Sherrill and Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger have sought to avoid the transgender issue, as polls consistently suggest voters oppose allowing boys in girls’ sports and men in women’s bathrooms. Sherrill enjoys a narrow lead over Ciattarelli, with 48.1% to the Republican’s 44%, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. The post New Jersey Teachers Union Backing Mikie Sherrill Plans Drag Queen Event Days After Election appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jeffries Endorsement of Mamdani Will Haunt Democrats Next Year

NEW: Federal Workers' Union Demands Senate Dems End Schumer Shutdown -- Now

If you're caught in a crash, this is where you'll want to be.

Picking up and keeping feathers is illegal in the US, and the reason why has a surprising amount to do with hats.