Contributions Epstein suicide harvard university Intelwars Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey epstein pedophile Math professor Pedophile

Harvard math professor put on administrative leave after report of ties to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein

A report of the ties between Harvard University and deceased billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has led to a math professor being placed on administrative leave.

The report was ordered by Harvard’s president and found troubling access given to Epstein at the behest of Martin Nowak, a director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Epstein gave $6.5 million to help establish the research center in 2003.

According to the Associated Press, the report found that Epstein was allowed to have an office at the office of the program by Nowak, who bent the security rules to give Epstein unfettered access.

Nowak said that the office belonged to Epstein “in name only,” but the report found differing accounts from others in the program.

Officials put Nowak on leave on Friday while their investigation into his behavior continued.

“We do not take this step lightly, but the seriousness of the matter leads us to believe it is not appropriate for Professor Nowak to continue in his role,” said Claudine Gay, a Harvard dean.

The report found that other faculty members travelled with Epstein and even visited in jail.

The accusations against Epstein gained new life in 2019 as more women went to the press and told their stories of sexual assault by the politically connected billionaire.

He was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 after what appeared to be a suicide. The highly charged circumstances of his death led to many conspiracy theories relating to the powerful people that he might have been able to implicate in his crimes had he continued to live.

Here’s more about Epstein’s Harvard contributions:

Harvard Admits It Received Millions Of Dollars From Jeffrey Epstein

Cares act Coronavirus Dollars Funds harvard university Intelwars

Harvard finally agrees it should not receive millions in coronavirus aid from taxpayers

Harvard University has finally agreed not to accept the millions of dollars allocated to it through a federal coronavirus relief package, following an enormous wave of backlash after the wealthy institution insisted it was entitled to the funds.

What are the details?

In a Twitter thread on Wednesday, the Ivy League university wrote, “Harvard will not accept funds from the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. Like most colleges & universities, Harvard has been allocated funds as part of the CARES Act. Harvard did not apply for this support, nor has it requested, received or accessed the funds.”

The day before, President Donald Trump said during a press conference that Harvard “shouldn’t be taking” money from the federal relief package, and insisted the university would pay it back.

Harvard initially said that it would keep the $8.6 million, arguing that it would “allocate 100% of the funds to financial assistance for students.” But that explanation did not end the outrage over “relief” dollars going to a university that sits on a $40 billion endowment—the largest in the United States.

President Trump celebrated Harvard’s decision during his coronavirus briefing on Wednesday, saying, “I’m pleased to announce that Harvard has announced today that they will not accept the funds nor will Stanford University.”

Coronavirus relief Coronavirus task force Donald Trump harvard university Intelwars Paycheck protection program President Donald Trump Relief bill trump

Trump promises Harvard will give back the millions it received of coronavirus relief funds

President Donald Trump said that Harvard University will be returning millions in coronavirus relief money they received after a public outcry that the money didn’t go to smaller businesses.

The president made the announcement during the coronavirus task force media briefing on Tuesday.

“Harvard is gonna pay back the money. They shouldn’t be taking it. So, Harvard is going to. You have a number of, I’m not gonna mention any other names,” he said.

“But when I saw Harvard, they have one of the largest endowments anywhere in the country, maybe in the world I guess,” continued Trump.

“And uh, they’re gonna pay back that money,” he concluded.

Harvard University was singled out by many on social media as an example of the unfair distribution of the relief funds from the program because the storied university has a $40 billion endowment it can lean on.

Forbes education editor Susan Adams outlined the argument against Harvard receiving such funds.

Harvard has become a lightning rod because it has the largest endowment of any school in the country. In June 2019, the endowment was valued at $41 billion. Why can’t Harvard just spend that money to help students and cover any of its own new expenses resulting from the pandemic?

A representative for Harvard said that the school deserved the funding because they had been hit with extraordinary expenses from the coronavirus pandemic lockdown.

On Monday, Dagen McDowell condemned the large banks for stalling on getting the funds out to businesses, while praising the small community banks that worked to help at a much faster rate. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin voiced similar observations at Tuesday’s media briefing.

Also on Tuesday, Senate Republicans passed a bill to refund the relief program and provide more money to distressed businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.

Here’s the announcement from the president:

Trump, Mnuchin condemn large businesses taking small business relief

Children COVID-19 Education harvard university homeschooling Intelwars lockdown pandemic Parenting

Harvard professor blasts homeschooling: ‘Dangerous’ for parents to have ‘authoritarian control over their children’

A Harvard University law professor says homeschooling is dangerous because it allows parents to have “authoritarian control” over their children.

What are the details?

Featured in an article for Harvard Magazine, Elizabeth Bartholet — Wasserstein public interest professor of law and faculty director of the Law School’s Child Advocacy Program — argued that homeschooling for children is simply a means for depriving children of any “meaningful education.”

In the article, “The Risks of Homeschooling,” Bartholet wrote, “We have an essentially unregulated regime in the area of homeschooling. If you look at the legal regime governing homeschooling, there are very few requirements that parents do anything.”

She pointed out that children are missing out on the experience of a public education and will likely not be able to contribute to a democratic society because of their lack of such an experience and such “detrimental” isolation.

“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18?” she asked. “I think that’s dangerous. I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.

“From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,” she wrote. “But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.”

Bartholet did not appear to provide any fact-based information throughout her remarks to highlight the dangers of homeschooling, and, instead, offered up her opinion as a teacher of civil rights and family law. Bartholet, who said that she specializes in child welfare, adoption, and reproductive technology, also asserted that children are at a higher risk of enduring abuse due to being cut off from teachers and other non-family authority figures.

Was there any kind of response?

Melba Pearson, an honors graduate from Harvard University, took note of Bartholet’s remarks and refused to remain silent.

In a now-viral article published on Medium, Pearson — who was homeschooled prior to her Harvard University admission — wrote, “I was proud of my school, until last night, when I read Harvard Magazine’s article on the so-called ‘risks’ of homeschooling.”

“In essence, this article is not an attack on a form of education some might view as lesser quality,” she added. “In essence, this article is an attack on the fundamental rights and freedoms that make our country (and until recently, institutions such as Harvard) what they are.”

She continued, “The idea that a government, already so inefficient and inadequate in so many areas, can care for and educate every child better than its parent is wrong.”

Pearson insisted that she was accepted at the prestigious school — and excelled — because she was homeschooled.

“[O]f that, I am proud,” she concluded. “It is deeply disappointing that Harvard is choosing and promoting an intellectual totalitarian path that calls for a ban of the liberties that helped me and countless others succeed, for it is those liberties and ideals that have made America the great nation it is today.”

(H/T: Faithwire)

Coronavirus COVID-19 harvard university Intelwars lockdowns Science social distancing

Researchers claim the world might need to social distance till 2022 — or face the wrath of more COVID-19

Some Harvard researchers say that additional social distancing measures may be needed — for years, into 2022 — in order to stop COVID-19 from continuing to surge.

What are the details?

A group of Harvard disease researchers said that intermittent social distancing — through 2022 — should help stop continual resurgence of COVID-19.

The researchers, who penned an article published in Science, said that stopping social distancing measures and resuming life as normal will only backfire and result in further infection spread.

The scientists added that further infections could possibly be more severe.

According to Bloomberg, researchers utilized computer simulations in determining how the ongoing pandemic could potentially play out.

“One possibility is that strict social distancing followed by intensive public-health detective work could chase down and eradicate the virus,” the outlet reported. “[W]ith confirmed cases of the new pathogen approaching 2 million globally, that outcome is seen as increasingly unlikely.”

Researchers added that the virus is likely to spread much like the influenza virus, and become a seasonal disease.

“In one [research] model, 20 weeks of measures to limit spread were followed by an epidemic peak that was as great as an uncontrolled spread,” Business Insider wrote.

Researchers added that social distancing was “so effective that virtually no population immunity was built,” and insisted that the potential seasonality of the virus would stretch healthcare to its breaking point on an annual basis.

“To avoid such outcomes,” the outlet added, “on-and-off social distancing measures might be needed until 2022, unless hospital capacity is increased, or effective vaccines or treatments are developed.”

What else?

Over the weekend, one of Britain’s top scientists said that she is 80 percent confident that a vaccine for COVID-19 could be ready by September.

The scientist, Sarah Gilbert of Oxford University, said that there is a “high chance” the vaccine — which is set for human trials by the end of April — will work.

“I think there’s a high chance that it will work based on other things that we have done with this type of vaccine,” she said. “It’s not just a hunch and as every week goes by we have more data to look at. I would go for 80%, that’s my personal view.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, however, has said that it could be 12-18 months before a successful vaccine could be developed.