All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Few, if any, world leaders will have a verb in their language named after them. Angela Merkel is an exception to this. ‘Merkeln’ in German youth vernacular, coined around a decade ago, means, according to the German dictionary publisher Langenscheidt,”to do nothing, make no decisions, issue no statements.”
Merkel’s reticence when it came to decision-making came to be a feature of her 16-year rule. For this she received criticism from many quarters, with journalists now assessing her legacy as one which although stable, was devoid of any really groundbreaking developments.
On a positive note, Merkel effectively steered Germany through various crises: the financial crash of 2008 and the economic problems which ensued; the exodus of refugees fleeing war-torn Syria in 2015 and the recent Covid pandemic. But the country is still lagging behind when it comes to technological innovation and digitalisation, with Merkel famously referring to the internet once as ‘uncharted territory’, for which she was ridiculed.
The reality is that Germany in the 21st century isn’t quite up to speed in the information age, with schools crying out for modern computers and health authorities still relying on fax machines instead of email. Unlike neighbouring European countries many council services are still not available online. In fact, an EU report this year ranked Germany 21st out of the bloc’s 27 member countries (plus the UK) for offering web online services to its citizens. The problem was highlighted during the Covid pandemic, as many schools were simply not set up for remote learning.
While Merkel’s careful approach may have generated criticism domestically, it proved to be a winning strategy in the field of geopolitics. The ultimate pragmatist, she was an expert at the art of diplomacy and had an irrefutable talent for maintaining productive working relationships with her global partners. This has been particularly evident in her ability to manage relations with both East and West; with the US but also with China and Russia. She visited China no less than 12 times during her tenure, more than any other European leader, and placed great importance on Sino-German relations, no doubt because of the interest German car manufacturers had in the Chinese market, which makes up around 38% of their global sales.
This pragmatism ensured that Germany was a country one could do business with; enabling Merkel to pursue her Nord Stream 2 project with Russia to bring gas straight to Germany (in fact to her home constituency). Despite considerable pressure from the United States to drop the scheme right up until its completion last month, Merkel was resolute in her determination that the pipeline should be built. In fact, throughout the highs and lows of the West’s relationship with Russia, Germany, unlike many of her western allies, kept diplomatic channels open, ensuring that dialogue would continue to take place. She always had a good working relationship with Vladimir Putin, with the two having more in common than other world leaders, both speaking German and having lived in East Germany.
Merkel and Putin, despite their differences on some issues, have a similar approach to international relations in that they are realists, and are principally concerned with the national interest. As Niall Ferguson, a historian from Stanford University has commented ‘Angela Merkel more than most western leaders was impressed by Putin, and accepted the logic of Putin’s argument that he was a source of energy that Europe could not do without.’
This refusal to take a harder line on Russia was of course, condemned by the US, but Merkel was not one to be pushed around, particularly after the phone-tapping scandal of 2013 which greatly undermined her trust in the US leadership. When it turned out that the NSA, under Barack Obama’s watch, had been monitoring Merkel’s mobile phone, it was clear that the Chancellor was not amused, stating that spying on one’s friends was ‘unacceptable’. Although she kept emotions out of politics, she was undoubtedly perturbed by the incident, and pursued a UN general assembly resolution calling for the right to privacy on the internet together with the then Brazilian leader Dilma Rouseff, whose country had also been targeted by the NSA.
With all these leadership skills of crisis management and diplomacy at her disposal, Merkel leaves behind her a large void to be filled. Whatever awaits Germany will likely be a period less stable than before, and less certain, with the new coalition government. We are entering a period of deeper divisions between East and West; will ‘Merkel’s successor’ be able to bridge that divide as she did? Or will he join western allies in pursuing a harder line towards China and Russia. One thing is for sure: Germany’s energy future is much more secure now with the Nord Stream 2 project, something that Germans only have Merkel to thank.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland. You can follow the author on Twitter.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 26,041 fatalities, and 2,448,362 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
A Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)
So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured following COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through September 25, 2021 there are 26,041 deaths and 2,448,362 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,176,130) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through September 25, 2021.
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer – 12,362 deaths and 1,054,741 injuries to 25/09/2021
28,662 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 172 deaths
29,569 Cardiac disorders incl. 1,834 deaths
277 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 23 deaths
265,482 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,320 deaths
866 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 53 deaths
4,104 Immune system disorders incl. 25 deaths
26,800 Infections and infestations incl. 347 deaths
11,472 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 153 deaths
22,152 Investigations incl. 129 deaths
11,805 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 77 deaths
151,690 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 76 deaths
536 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 17 deaths
209,576 Nervous system disorders incl. 872 deaths
456 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 11 deaths
164 Product issues incl. 1 death
18,858 Psychiatric disorders incl. 50 deaths
3,752 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 49 deaths
13,707 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
35,537 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 654 deaths
46,297 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 40 deaths
1,328 Social circumstances incl. 7 deaths
1,199 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 24 deaths
24,833 Vascular disorders incl. 395 deaths
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson – 1,304 deaths and 78,774 injuries to 25/09/2021
737 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 32 deaths
1,315 Cardiac disorders incl. 129 deaths
26 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
687 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 1 death
47 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
1,067 Eye disorders incl. 6 deaths
7,102 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 59 deaths
20,536 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 333 deaths
98 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 9 deaths
321 Immune system disorders incl. 7 deaths
1,943 Infections and infestations incl. 79 deaths
743 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 17 deaths
3,998 Investigations incl. 79 deaths
465 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 29 deaths
12,263 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 33 deaths
37 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 2 deaths
16,253 Nervous system disorders incl. 148 deaths
26 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
21 Product issues
1,059 Psychiatric disorders incl. 11 deaths
311 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 15 deaths
1,139 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 4 deaths
2,786 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 148 deaths
2,426 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 5 deaths
235 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
572 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 43 deaths
2,561 Vascular disorders incl. 109 deaths
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on 26,041 Deaths 2,448,362 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Union’s Database as Slovenia Suspends J&J Shot after Death of 20-Year-Old Student
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Pax Americana was always a minor character in a zombie apocalypse flick.
Pax Americana is actually The Eternal Return of the Living Dead. “Pax” was never in order; War Inc. rules. The end of WWII led directly to the Cold War. The unipolar moment was an arc from the First Gulf War to the bombing of Yugoslavia. 9/11 launched the Global War on Terror (GWOT), renamed Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) by Team Obama. We are now entering Cold War 2.0 against China.
What former CIA analyst Ray McGovern memorably describes as the MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) never did “Pax”. They do War, in unison, like The Knights Who Say “Ni!” – minus the comic flair.
Take this Knight for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the heart of the establishment matrix. CFR specializes in Kissingerian Divide and Rule. Now that applies, in spades, to the Russia-China strategic partnership.
Knights overwhelmingly state the obvious: “Chinese power must be contained”. They sell the current, serial imperial debacle as “grand strategic moves”, in a quirky, lost in translation mixed salad of Gramsci and Lampedusa: a “new order” (engineered by the Empire) is being born via “everything must change so everything may remain the same” – privileging the Empire.
Other Knights even propose the ludicrous notion that the current POTUS, an actual zombie remote-controlled by a teleprompter, is capable of conceiving a “foreign policy for the middle class” , as if the MICIMATT would ever approve a scheme to “advance prosperity in the free world as a whole”. The “free world” has just been stunned by the “prosperity” offered to Afghanistan during 20 “bombing to democracy” years.
And then there are British Knights, who at least should have known their Monty Python by heart, carping about illiberalism and the “regimes created by Xi and Putin” , which will “crumble” and be succeeded by “anarchy and new despotisms.” Same old Anglo haughtiness mixed with piercing ignorance. Oh, those Asiatic “tyrannies” threatening the White Man’s civilizational drive.
We all live in an Aussie submarine
Now it’s all about AUKUS – actually U SUK A. Until recently, only the P5 – the five permanent UNSC members – possessed nuclear-powered submarines. India joined the club, and later rather than sooner, Australia.
Every major player knows the next American war will not be about remote Pacific islands. Taiwan, though, is a completely different ball game. U SUK A is mostly about Taiwan.
U SUK A was finalized at the G7 summit in Carbis Bay last June. That was an Anglo Boys Club affair, discussed exclusively by the Biden-BoJo-Morrison troika – and duly excluding Japan, even as Tokyo all but drew a samurai sword yelling its intent of supporting Taiwan.
The problem is there have been no leaks of the fine print contained in U SUK A. Only spin. Yet it’s already clear that U SUK A goes way beyond building Aussie nuclear subs. Canberra will also have access to Tomahawks, Hornets and even become part of American hypersonic missile research.
But then, in a slip, Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton gave away the game: U SUK A will allow the upgrading of “the infrastructure in Perth, that will be necessary for the operation of these submarines. I expect we will see…lease arrangements or greater joint operations between our navies in the future.”
Translation: Perth will be a forward base for nuclear-powered and nuclear weapon-carrying American subs.
Why U SUK A now? Let’s go back to WWII – and the same old cartoonish geopolitics of benign Anglo maritime island powers pitted against the “evil” Eurasian heartland.
WWII was the solution to simultaneously prevent Germany from dominating the Atlantic and Japan from dominating the Asia-Pacific (by the way, that’s the correct terminology: “Indo-Pacific” is Empire-speak).
Germany-Japan was all about an alliance that would be predominant across the Eurasian heartland. Now, the Empire of Chaos is being slowly but surely expelled from the Eurasian heartland – this time by the Russia-China strategic partnership.
Those with technical knowledge across the Beltway – not, not the Knights – are aware the US is not a match for hypersonic Russia. Yet the Americans believe they can make life unbearable for Beijing. The US establishment will allow China to control the Western Pacific over their dead bodies. Enter the instrumentalization of Australia.
A big question is what will be the new role of the Five Eyes. With U SUK A, the Anglo Club has already stepped beyond mere intel sharing and spying on communications. This is a military pact between Three Eyes.
Depending on the composition of its new government, Germany could become a Sixth Eye – yet in a subordinate role. With U SUK A, NATO as a whole, fresh from its spectacular Afghan debacle, becomes little else than a semi-relevant vassal. This is all about maritime power.
U SUK A in effect is a Quad Plus, with India and Japan, the Fifth Columnist Asians, only allowed to play the role of, once again, mere vassals.
War before 2040
Not surprisingly, the first, concise technical and strategic assessment of U SUK A is Russian, written by Alexander Timokhin and published in Vzglyad, closely linked to GRU intelligence. Here, provided by John Helmer, is an essential English translation.
The key points:
the extra subs will create a serious, additional threat; “the problem of combating enemy submarine forces will become quite acute for China.”
Geographically, “Australia can completely block the connection between China and the Indian Ocean.”
Australia will meet the deadlines only if it lays “more submarines a year than the Americans.”
It is “possible to quickly make Australia a country with a submarine fleet.” These “gigantic investments and sharp political turns are not carried out just like that. The hegemony of the Anglo-Saxons in the world is seriously shaken.”
And that brings us to the inevitable conclusion: “It is worth recognizing that the world is on the verge of war.”
Even before the Vzglyad strategic assessment, I had submitted the ravings of yet another Beltway Knight – widely praised as a sage – to an old school, dissident Deep State intel analyst. His assessment was merciless.
He wrote me, “the geopolitical logic is that the China-Russia alliance was determined to be against US interests, much as the Mao-Stalin alliance. SEATO and NATO are being replicated. The treaty between England, Australia and the US is part of the Pacific rebalancing, or a new SEATO. NATO is part of the offset against Russia-China in Europe.”
On what might lie ahead, he noted that “the coup against the US, Australia, England and NATO would be a French-Russian alliance to break up NATO and isolate Germany. Russia has unsuccessfully approached Germany, and now may approach France. The loss of France would effectively end NATO.”
He sees U SUK A all dressed up with nowhere to go: “As it stands now, China is in command of the Pacific and Australia and Britain mean nothing. Russia can overrun NATO in two weeks, our adversaries’ hypersonic missiles can destroy all NATO airfields within five to ten minutes and the battle for Europe would be over.”
He’s adamant that “the US cannot project power into the Pacific. Chinese submarine missiles would finish off the US fleet in short order. The Australian submarine issue is really irrelevant; if the CIA had an organization that was worth anything they would know that our adversaries already can spot and destroy our nuclear submarines without the slightest difficulty. The entire US Navy is obsolete and defenseless against Russian missiles.”
And it gets worse – at least for the cheerleading Knights: “The F-35 is obsolete. The Air Force is largely worthless, as Russian and Chinese missiles can finish off their airfields or aircraft carriers in short order. The woke US Army is more worthless than the French Army with their Maginot Line. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are paid less than 200k a year, and are second or third rate talent. The US is a sinking ship.”
Assuming that’s really the case, the – nuclear – war against China in the Western Pacific, projected in the Beltway to happen in the second half of the 2030s, would be over even before it started. Taiwan may even be part of China by then – an offshoot of Beijing always proposing economic exchanges to all, while Washington always “proposes” war.
One thing though will never change: The Knights Who Say “Ni!” singin’ the praise of Pax Americana to the utter indifference of the unruly plebs.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In hundreds of films and TV shows, every single word and image has been closely scrutinized and signed off on by senior military figures, all in an effort to convince viewers into supporting deadly and grossly immoral campaigns around the world.
The (official) 20-year U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has come to a close, with the military beating a hasty and ignominious retreat. The puppet Afghan government NATO installed lasted fewer than two weeks on its own, with President Ashraf Ghani fleeing for the UAE, allegedly with around $169 million in cash.
If the occupation was so unpopular and weak, how was it able to last so long? The Afghanistan Papers — a trove of military documents leaked to The Washington Post — showed that high-ranking government officials knew that the war was unwinnable but were openly lying to the public about how it was going, all while NGOs and military contractors made billions.
But documents obtained by journalist Tom Secker under the Freedom of Information Act and shared with MintPress also show that Hollywood also played a significant role, knowingly collaborating with the Pentagon to produce pro-war propaganda about Afghanistan, ultimately helping to artificially buoy public opinion on the unwinnable campaign. This typically included giving the Pentagon direct editorial control over scripts and even removing any anti-war content or scenes that would show the military in a negative light. In exchange, the military offered its human resources, its bases as locations for filming, and its wide range of hi-tech vehicles to be used in movies. This quid pro quo effectively turned much of Hollywood, and the entertainment industry more generally, into cheerleaders for imperialism.
The military-industrial-media complex
Reading through the documents, what becomes clear is the sheer scale of the military’s involvement in the silver screen, and in pop culture more generally. For instance, between 2015 and 2017, the U.S. Army’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs West (OCPA-W) — based just outside of Hollywood, CA — was generally working on between 40 and 70 entertainment media projects at one time. The OCPA-W is one of three Army regional offices, the others being in Chicago and New York City. The Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, CIA and other government organizations all have similar agencies and programs aimed at manipulating their image in mass media.
The OCPA-W’s weekly summary of its affairs for the week of December 22, 2016, for example, notes that it is involved in 63 working projects; 15 in pre-production, 26 in production and 22 in post-production. According to research by Secker and Matthew Alford for their 2017 book “National Security Cinema,” the Department of Defense has supported at least 814 movies and 1,133 separate TV shows, the majority of those in recent years.
Afghanistan is generally far from American minds. This is by design: few at the top of American society want the public to be scrutinizing U.S. actions there. When the country is portrayed on American screens, the military works extremely hard to present the war in a way most conducive to its interests. Hollywood has been a willing collaborator in this. Below is a selection of case studies of movies about or featuring the war in Afghanistan and a discussion about how the U.S. military has had those movies sanitized before they ever met the public eye.
12 Strong (2018)
“12 Strong” is a jingoistic action film based on a true story about a small unit of 12 U.S. Special Forces who invaded Afghanistan immediately after the September 11 attacks, thus being the first American boots on the ground of a two-decade campaign that cost the lives of an estimated 176,000 Afghans, displacing almost 6 million more.
The film entails the elite group attempting to capture the city of Mazar-i-Sharif before NATO forces arrive. The team, so they say, is outnumbered by “50,000 Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces,” as if the two were close allies. This is despite the fact that the Taliban immediately condemnedthe 9/11 attacks and that Western estimates put al-Qaeda’s global forces at the time at below 100 members. “If we don’t take that city, the World Trade Center is just the beginning,” says one of the heroes of the film, whose tagline is “twelve soldiers gave us a reason to hope.”
Documents show that the military was eager to help with such a nationalistic film, and matched what they called the production company’s “breathtaking” list of asks, including access to a number of military bases in New Mexico for shooting; army uniforms for actors; “target” vehicles they could blow up; the hire of a number of aircraft, including Chinook and Seahawk helicopters; and appropriate Soviet tanks for the enemy to use. They also aided the company in finding military extras to appear in minor roles.
Despite the movie’s strongly pro-war message, the OCPA-W, Air Force, and other military organizations still insisted on going through the script with a fine-toothed comb, removing even minor details it did not like. This included demanding that writers changed their plans to present the 12 soldiers as rugged men with full beards and tattoos. An email from OCPA read:
My other concern is that during the loadout sequences at Fort Campbell that occurred shortly after 9/11 our soldiers did not have full length beards and neck tattoos. That came later. I hope [REDACTED] guys are going to Shave for those sequences.
A few weeks later, the seemingly minor point had not been resolved. In a show of just how much control over creative direction the military had, the OCPA threatened to pull out of the movie, reminding the production company of the agreement they had signed up for:
The production company agrees to cast actors, extras, doubles, and stunt personnel portraying military men and women who conform to individual Military Service regulations governing age, height / weight, uniform, grooming, appearance, and conduct standards. DoD reserves the right to suspend support in the event that disagreement regarding the military aspects of their portrayals cannot be resolved in negotiation between the production company and DoD within the seventy-two hour cure-period. The DoD Project Officer will provide written guidance specific to each Military Service being portrayed.
U.S. Army.
(1) The depiction of Soldiers in the Continental United States prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks should be in accordance with U.S. Army Regulation 670-1, West and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia. Soldiers would meet height/weight standards, be clean shaven, with a well-groomed haircut and be wearing the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). Load bearing equipment would be olive drab or the BDU pattern.
(2) The depiction of deployed Soldiers following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks would be in accordance with the tactical situation. Soldiers would still meet height/weight requirements (appear physically fit) with relaxed grooming standards for extended operations. The deployed Soldiers would be wearing the Desert Combat Dress Uniform (DCU) with olive drab or BDU pattern load bearing equipment.
The Department of Defense is well aware that the sort of assistance they offer (free equipment, filming locations, etc.) would be enormously expensive, if not impossible, to otherwise obtain. Therefore, they leverage their considerable influence into what amounts to control over every aspect of a movie or TV show they work on. This often even means jettisoning reality in favor of a relentlessly pro-war message.
Emails show that OCPA instructed the production company to change the minor criminal backstory of one of the 12 soldiers, despite the fact it was perfectly real. As one OCPA official wrote:
I told him our two biggest issues were the background story of Cpt [REDACTED]
being any FNG [“Fucking New Guy,” a derogatory military term for recruits] when he was actually a Team Leader for two years and the comment about Sergeant [REDACTED] having a choice between Jail and the Army.
According to the book the bar fight incident did happen, [REDACTED] attorney
was able to plea deal it down to a misdemeanor with a probation period. He
did lose his job as a school teacher and he started to work construction. I [sic]
period of time later, he decided to join the US Army.
Production quickly agreed to the changes, a few weeks later sending a new script for the OCPA and Air Force’s approval. “Here is a revised draft of Horse Soldiers,” they replied. “We changed [REDACTED]’s backstory per your suggestion. Please let me know if this works for you. [PERSON’s NAME REDACTED], would you send this draft to the appropriate Air Force personnel and let me know whom to follow up with?” (Cross referencing the documents with the book it is based on makes it clear that the sergeant in question is Sam Diller, one of the main characters in both book and movie).
None of the military’s demands appear to have caused much resistance from the company. Indeed, towards the end of filming, a senior member of the team even emailed the OCPA and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to offer his profound gratitude for their services:
[The] Army and the entire team have been absolutely fantastic and helped us achieve an amazing air-to-air shoot this evening. They are the utmost professional highly trained crew. We know if it wasn’t for your great efforts to make this movie badass we would have never gotten such a team. We promise to make the Army proud, so THANK YOU!!!!!
“Lone Survivor” is the largely true story of a Navy SEAL team that was discovered and attacked by the Taliban while carrying out a special operation to assassinate the organization’s commander, Ahmad Shah. The SEALs suffered devastating losses, leaving only one man — Marcus Luttrell — to tell the story.
The plot of the film revolves around the squad being discovered by local goat herders and their supposedly heart-wrenching decision on whether to kill the shepherds to cover their tracks, or let them go, the assumption being that the old man and two children in question would immediately alert the Taliban to their whereabouts. The group decided to let their captives go, which almost immediately turned out to be a deadly mistake.
The story is based upon the book by Luttrell, who is now a Trump-loving media anchor on Glenn Beck’s conservative TV network “TheBlaze.” At times, Luttrell’s book reads like the manifesto of a white-nationalist mass-shooter, and is peppered throughout with his seething hatred of liberals. Luttrell is extremely regretful that he went along with the decision to let the Afghans go and did not stick to his gut feeling and insist they murder an old man and two children (all unarmed). “It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life,” he wrote. “I’d turned into a fucking liberal, a half-assed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain.” By way of explanation, he said that it was his certainty that the liberal media would betray the troops and side with the Taliban that made him release them, telling his fellow SEALs at the time:
Just so you all understand, their bodies will be found, the Taliban will use it to the max. They’ll get it in the papers, and the U.S. liberal media will attack us without mercy. We will almost certainly be charged with murder.
Apologizing for not carrying out what amounts to a war crime, he writes:
That situation might look simple in Washington, where the human rights of terrorists are often given high priority. And I am certain liberal politicians would defend their position to the death. Because everyone knows liberals have never been wrong about anything. You can ask them. Anytime.
The book is a glorification of supposedly righteous violence against a subhuman opponent. As he explains:
“In the global war on terror, we have rules, and our opponents use them against us. We try to be reasonable; they will stop at nothing. They will stoop to any form of base warfare: torture, beheading, mutilation. Attacks on innocent civilians, women and children, car bombs, suicide bombers, anything the hell they can think of. They’re right up there with the monsters of history.
The original script stayed close to Luttrell’s interpretation of events. Needless to say, however, the military demanded major rewrites. In the finished version, the Navy SEAL commander simply decides to let the goat herders go, with no arguments about whether to kill them and hide their bodies and certainly no long soliloquies about the treachery of the liberal media, as happens in the book.
The military often claims that they aid the film industry merely to ensure depictions of themselves are more accurate. Yet reading through 131 pages of declassified emails between them and production company, Film 44, it is clear that this is not the case. Indeed, Philip Strub, the Department of Defense’s chief Hollywood liaison, made this explicit, writing in a now-declassified email:
While maximizing historical authenticity is our mandate, we share responsibility for the reputations of the four SEALs and to their families’ memories of them.
What also becomes apparent after reading the documents is the level of intimacy between the movie industry and the military, and the latter’s fastidious attention to detail, poring over every single word of dialogue to ensure each frame is as pro-war as the film can get. Strub and his associates even insisted minor touches, like visible tattoos on the SEALs, be written out of the script. They also demanded the deletion of a scene in which Luttrell and another SEAL have a conversation about Power Bars, taunting each other, with Luttrell shouting “blow me, fag,” then loudly farting. This was presumably in an effort to ensure members of the Navy SEALs did not come across as uncouth as Lutrell does in his own book.
“I just learned from Film 44 (Sarah and Braden) that they are ready to submit Pete’s latest rewrite to us. They say that they have used our notes as a kind of check-list, and addressed all of our concerns. You’ll be receiving the watermarked script via email very shortly,” Strub wrote in an email that suggests that every draft script needed to meet the military’s exacting standards. Strub is one of the most powerful men in the entertainment industry. The list of movies and TV shows for which he is (publicly) credited is staggering, surely more impressive than virtually any other director or producer in Hollywood. Yet his name is all but unknown to the public.
The DoD’s chief Hollywood liaison, Phillip Strub, has had a hand in many of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters
According to the documents, the military categorized their role in the movie into four parts: “script review and vetting,” “production department consulting,” talent training” and “on-set coaching.” In exchange for what amounts to total content control, the military provided “Lone Survivor’s” producers with the use of Kirtland Air Force Base in a rocky and sandy part of New Mexico that could easily pass for Afghanistan; the use of a multitude of expensive aircraft, including Black Hawk and Apache helicopters; and parachute jumpers and other general military personnel.
One reason for this continued involvement is obvious, and made explicit in the emails. “One of the criteria for DoD to support the movie is recruiting,” wrote an officer from U.S. Special Operations Command.
What is particularly noteworthy about this movie is that its entire premise — that if the SEALs chose not to kill the goat herders they would be found out — is demonstrably incorrect. Interviews with locals (including the man who hid and protected Luttrell, ensuring he was the lone survivor) establish that everybody in the area knew the SEALs were there, thanks to the elite unit’s own incompetence when it came to stealth. An enormous American helicopter landing in a remote part of rural Afghanistan was enough to raise suspicions among locals. If that was not enough, the SEAL team failed to dispose of evidence of their landing.
Unsurprisingly, Strub and his colleagues insisted this scene, which threatened to introduce a potential alternative reading of the movie — in which bungling Americans get caught, outmaneuvered, then slaughtered — was changed. This helped ensure the movie was as relentlessly pro-military as possible, despite the fact that it was telling the story of one of the deadliest U.S. military blunders of the entire war.
Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)
“Charlie Wilson’s War” tells the story of the eponymous Texas politician most famous for being the driving force behind Operation Cyclone — the CIA’s funding and training of the Afghan Mujahideen (an action that also turned the country into the world’s largest heroin producer).
The original script did not portray Wilson or his endeavors especially sympathetically, explicitly noting how he was supporting extremists like Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. One of these ultra-radicals was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a brutal warlord widely accused of starting the trend of throwing acid in women’s faces. Throughout the original script, 9/11 is presented as a foreseeable consequence of the U.S.’s decision to empower these violent fanatics. Indeed, the original end scene took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, with Wilson hearing the deafening screech of an airliner hitting the building.
However, all this — al-Qaeda, Hekmatyar, and the 9/11 scene — was cut from the script after the CIA reviewed it. Instead, the finished film ends with Wilson receiving a medal for his services to freedom in Afghanistan. Also removed was a scene discussing the Sabra and Shatilla Massacres, where Israeli-backed forces slaughtered hundreds, if not thousands, of Palestinian refugees.
Earlier versions of the script also portrayed the Soviets somewhat sympathetically, with one character noting that Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan included “forc[ing] them [Afghans] to learn to read and write.” This was also cut in favor of portraying Soviet soldiers as brutal and unthinking monsters slaughtering the local population.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016)
The comedy-drama — which stars Tina Fey, Margot Robbie and Martin Freeman as Western journalists covering the Afghan War — was something of a flop at the box office. Still, it managed to reduce losses significantly by filming at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico (just as “Lone Survivor” did) and using real U.S. Marines as extras. In exchange, producers handed over significant editorial control of the story to the military, which insisted on changing a scene where a U.S. military truck crashed into a crowd of civilians. In the final movie, there are no images of this, and the incident is referred to only in a 20-second news segment that describes it merely as “a fatal traffic accident involving a coalition truck.”
The crash was a real incident. In 2006, the truck plowed through Kabul during rush hour, killing at least three civilians and injuring many others. “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” is based on American journalist Kim Barker’s memoir “The Taliban Shuffle.” The incident plays a major role in her book as the point where she finally understood how pointless and unwinnable the war was, how there was no accountability for the rich and powerful and no justice for the “have nots.” She described it and the following anti-U.S. riots as “a major breaking point in Afghanistan, the time when we first saw just how angry some Afghans were, just how ripe the country was for a Taliban comeback, just how leaderless Afghanistan really was.” Yet in the movie, the crash is mentioned only in passing, making the rioting Afghans appear irrationally angry and violent, a typical stereotype of Afghan War films.
Iron Man (2008)
The original “Iron Man” script was decidedly pacifist, with protagonist Tony Stark attempting to use his enormous manufacturing empire to battle against war profiteers and the military industrial complex. However, after the Pentagon got involved, with Philip Strub again acting as the military liaison, the tone of the movie was radically altered. Much of the fighting in the movie takes place in modern-day Afghanistan, with the U.S. military serving the role of the good guys. In this sense, the film’s stance on war was reversed.
In exchange, the production agreement notes that the military would allow the movie to be shot at Edwards Air Force Base, just north of Los Angeles; provide “approximately 150 extras at Edwards AFB to play military members from various services and Afghan nationals;” help produce around 100 uniforms; and provide the opportunity to use a range of expensive aircraft.
Tom Secker, when asked by MintPress to assess the U.S. film industry’s role in prolonging the Afghan war, responded:
Hollywood’s coverage of NATO’s war in Afghanistan has been notable by its absence, its silence, and its use of contextless microcosms which represent the war, rather than explore or explain it. “Iron Man” and “Lone Survivor” — two Pentagon-supported blockbusters — are both set during the U.S. occupation, but the scale of that occupation and the mess it was making of the country are ignored by both narratives, in favor of tightly-focused cinematic synecdoches which conveniently avoid the suffering of everyone involved.
Secker concluded:
In that sense, of course Hollywood has played a crucial role in perpetuating the war. They either failed to remind people that the war was still going on, or painted it in heroic, decontextualized colors that make it seem like a benevolent adventure halfway round the world, rather than the crushing, destructive geopolitical ratfuck it truly is.
A mediated war
It is not just big-budget Hollywood movies that the Pentagon works on, however. Practically every medium is used to spread a pro-war message. Declassified documents show that the Army flew Arnold Schwarzenegger to Afghanistan for the global-warming documentary TV series “Years of Living Dangerously.” This was, laughably, an effort to present the U.S. military — the single largest polluter in the world — as a force for good with regard to climate change, showing the former bodybuilder their supposed efforts to set up renewable energy systems across the Middle East.
Likewise, pop culture is full of strategically inserted pro-war messages. For instance, declassified documents show that the OCPA-W carefully placed uniformed service members in opportune spots in the audience of the game show “The Price is Right.” The military pays the National Football League millions of dollars to put troops on the field or fly aircraft over the stadium before big football games, turning the entire event into a recruitment drive. It also has a video-games team called “U.S. Army Esports,” helping to associate the military with fun in the minds of the children watching. They have also been accused of using the same grooming techniques pedophiles use, only to recruit children into joining the war machine.
Major General Frank Muth, head of Army recruiting & the Army eSports project, openly explains how their sinister strategy of having recruiters on Twitch—in a clandestine and subversive manner—groom teens into joining pic.twitter.com/rie8Xafy7l
Meanwhile, the music video for pop star Katy Perry’s song “Part of Me” was shot at Camp Pendleton Military Base in California, and shows Perry getting over a bad breakup by joining the Marines. The training process shows her finding herself again and growing as an individual. When Fox News asked Perry’s team if they had been paid by the military for the video, they refused to answer. The video currently has 887 million views on YouTube.
“The whole videography … is straight out of [Nazi film maker] Leni Riefenstahl: the same angled, heroizing upward shots, the same fetishization of physical power, of gleaming armaments, and of the rigor and mechanism of human beings cohering into living militarized units,” wrote feminist critic Naomi Wolf, who labeled the song “war propaganda.”
TV news is also filled with former high-ranking military officials who play the role of neutral expert while sticking, laser-like, to pro-war talking points, helping to give cable news coverage of the conflict a decidedly jingoistic bent.
What these documents ultimately underline is the deep interlocking connections between Hollywood and the national security state. Few Americans experience the war from close up. Even fewer realize that depictions of the conflict come heavily mediated through the military. In hundreds of films and TV shows, every single word and image has been closely scrutinized and signed off by senior military figures, all in the effort to convince viewers into supporting deadly and grossly immoral campaigns around the world. Long ago, the military realized the power of Hollywood. It is high time that Americans realized that, when watching movies and TV shows about war, all too often they are not seeing neutral works of art, but carefully constructed pieces of national security propaganda.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
YouTube will ban all “harmful vaccine content” from its platform, including claims that vaccines are ineffective at reducing disease transmission. The ban comes after a year of escalating censorship by the Google-owned company.
“We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with Covid-19 to other vaccines,” YouTube said in a blog post on Wednesday.
The new rules prohibit content alleging that vaccines “cause chronic side effects,” that they “do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease,” and that they contain unlisted ingredients like fetal cells. The rules apply to all currently approved and administered vaccines, and not just Covid-19 shots.
At first glance, the rules are open to interpretation. YouTube’s moderators will have to decide, for instance, whether content discussing side effects strays beyond the “rare side effects that are recognised by health authorities.” Likewise, multiple studies and real-world data have suggested that Covid-19 vaccines are less effective at preventing transmission and infection than previously thought, and some suggest that this efficacy wanes with time.
And, while YouTube explicitly bans claims that vaccines contain fetal tissue or fetal cell lines, shots for various diseases – including Hepatitis A, Rubella and Chickenpox – are actually manufactured using cell lines started in aborted fetal tissue, but individual doses do not contain any of this tissue.
Content violating these new rules will receive a series of “strikes” from YouTube, with three strikes resulting in the termination of the offending channel.
The new policy adds to YouTube’s existing ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation policy,’ which sets out a wide range of forbidden topics regarding the coronavirus. These include videos “encouraging home remedies,” content claiming “that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of Covid-19,” and content “that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of Covid-19.”
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Forbes Magazine has confirmed that the US federal government will fine employers who violate Joe Biden’s Vax Mandate.
President Joe Biden didn’t just announce a Covid-19 vaccine mandate on companies employing 100 or more people, he plans to enforce it.
On Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House quietly tucked an enforcement mechanism into their $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill, passed it out of the Budget Committee, and sent it to the House floor.
Buried on page 168 of the House Democrats’ 2,465-page mega bill is a tenfold increase in fines for employers that “willfully,” “repeatedly,” or even seriously violate a section of labor law that deals with hazards, death, or serious physical harm to their employees.
The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations—almost three-quarters of a million dollars for eachfine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden’s announced mandate.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
United Airlines is set to terminate 593 of its employees who have chosen to not comply with the company’s vaccine mandate, it confirmed to The Epoch Times on Sept. 29.
The company was the first U.S. carrier to mandate vaccines for all domestic employees, having announced its mandate in August. Employees were required to be vaccinated by Sept. 27 or they would be terminated by Oct. 2. Those who refused the vaccine would be terminated outright.
In a memo sent to employees on Sept. 28 and obtained by The Epoch Times, United Airlines Chief Executive Scott Kirby and President Brett Hart said the company would start the process of firing the employees who refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
The United Airlines executives told staff that more than 99 percent of domestic employees “chose to get vaccinated, excluding those who submitted for an accommodation.”
“For the less than 1 [percent] of people who decided to not get vaccinated, we’ll unfortunately begin the process of separation from the airline per our policy,” the memo reads. “This was an incredibly difficult decision but keeping our team safe has always been our first priority. The pandemic is now killing more than 2,000 people per day—a 65 [percent] increase in just the past 30 days—and the most effective way to keep our people safe, is to make sure they’re vaccinated.”
Two major unions representing United Airlines workers, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA and the Air Line Pilots Association, didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time. They had said in previous statements that they supported the mandates.
The memo noted that those applying for a medical or religious exemption have had “the deadline for implementing the accommodations” extended due to a pending court case.
United Airlines officials said people who applied for religious and medical exemptions account for less than 3 percent of the company’s workforce of 67,000 people. It was going to offer an “accommodation” of unpaid personal leave from Oct. 2. Doing so would mean that the employees would also forfeit their benefits, including medical coverage.
Six United Airlines employees filed a class-action suit against the airline last week, with attorneys arguing that the company’s handling of its vaccine mandates violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The attorneys for the employees announced on Sept. 28 that the company had agreed to pause its plan until Oct. 15 to apply so-called accommodation for about 2,000 of its employees who have applied for religious or medical exemptions.
They hailed the move as “a victory for employees seeking reasonable accommodations for personal medical decisions,” and condemned the “accommodation” that United Airlines had initially offered as “termination by another name.”
Texas Judge Mark Pittman is set to hear evidence and arguments in the lawsuit on Oct. 8.
A United Airlines spokesperson told Reuters that the company plans to hire about 25,000 people over the next few years and that COVID-19 vaccination is a condition of employment. The spokesperson stated that the company will also require students at its pilot training school to get vaccinated.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mimi Nguyen Ly is a reporter based in Australia. She covers world news with a focus on U.S. news. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in optometry and vision science from the University of New South Wales. Contact her at [email protected].
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
People driving around the Texas cities of Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas over the last few days have seen new billboards along major highways encouraging them to resist the incessant bullying from politicians, media, schools, businesses, and employers related to the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots.
The huge billboards declare the messages “Make an Informed Choice!” and “DON’T BE BULLIED.” The billboards also display the image of a gloved hand holding a vial labeled “COVID 19 Coronavirus Vaccine.”
Source: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) put up the billboards recently in Texas. CCHF had put up similar billboards in Idaho, Minnesota, and Wisconsin before it announced, on August 25, its billboards public outreach effort. In its press release announcing the billboards public outreach effort, CCHF declared it had “the intent of raising awareness and building resistance to the vaccination mandates that are currently being used as an effort to coerce Americans into submitting to the ‘jab’.”
More power to CCHF in its effort to directly communicate a contrary view to people who are relentlessly bombarded with propaganda promoting not just the taking of experimental coronavirus vaccines, but the imposing of vaccine passports and vaccine mandates as well. The big money media and social media, acting like bullies, seek to prevent people from hearing the arguments that counter the propaganda. It is thus important for people trying to counter the propaganda to use alternative means, billboards among them, to circumvent the information gatekeepers.
In Texas, newspaper and TV station news stories about the new billboards have predictably used the “reporting” to condemn the billboards’ message while again trumpeting the party line on the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. Bullying, indeed.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
If this were a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” it would be the unvaccinated who would be getting infected and dying in overwhelming numbers. This, however, is demonstrably not the case.
The unspoken truth is that the virus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, Sofia Benharira passed away on September 21, 7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine. This is happening all over the World: Children and adolescents are dying.
What explains the Vaccine Mandates?It is known that the vaccine does not protect—thus masks and booster shots—but it does kill and maim.Why are they determined to kill and maim us?
An anonymous nurse whistleblower, ‘Sarah’, speaks to Stew Peters about what she’s seeing in the US hospital she works at regarding the injured patients coming in. Her general perception about who is injured and why confirms the impressions of UK funeral director John O’Looney that we reported on yesterday.
This article celebrates the amazing bravery of a physician and senior military officer attacking the evil stupidity and anti-science character of the public health establishment. Standing up to the coercive mandates to force COVID vaccine shots for large segments of the population that have far more risks than benefits from them.
The US Congress invited neoconservative regime-change strategists to discuss the next stage of hybrid warfare on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, which will likely involve creating an economic blockade, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of President Daniel Ortega, and borrowing tactics the Trump administration used in its coup attempt in Venezuela.
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.
Excess deaths data tell us an incredible tale. Sweden has been largely open and free from any restrictions for 15 months and counting, and Stockholm has seen virtually *zero* excess deaths from the “deadly pandemic.”
In this interview with Brannon Howse, Dr. Ardis reveals to us shocking information. As early as October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew that the COVID vaccines could lead to numerous side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, autoimmune disease, pregnancy and birth outcomes, thrombocytopenia, and vaccine enhanced disease.
Protests have finally erupted in Israel as it has slowly dawned on people there that the goalposts for vaccine passports keep being shifted by the government.
The Justice Centre has notified the Province that it will file a legal action should Ontario fail to halt its unconstitutional discrimination against those who have not yet chosen to receive the experimental vaccines.
A “Physicians’ Declaration” produced by an international alliance of physicians and medical scientists strongly condemns the global strategy to treat COVID, accusing policy-makers of potential “crimes against humanity” for preventing physicians from providing life-saving treatments for their patients and suppressing open scientific discussion.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
If there was any reason to halt a farcical train of legal proceedings, then the case against Julian Assange would have to be the standard bearing example. Since last year, the efforts by the US government to pursue his extradition to the vicious purgatory of American justice has seen more than a fair share of obscene revelations. While prosecutors for the US insist that the publisher must find himself in freedom land for having, incongruously, violated provisions under the Espionage Act of 1917, the broader political elements to this are impossible to shake.
From the moment classified US documents were released with daring aplomb on the WikiLeaks site, Assange was treated as a political target sneeringly condemned by Joe Biden (then Vice President) as a “cyber terrorist”. It did not matter that he had been granted political asylum by a foreign government, or that he had exposed the vicious nature of the US war machine in foreign lands.
The central strategy of the enraged in the face of such exposure is conventionally dull. Mock the publisher; redirect attention away from exposing the bloody mischief of empire. In the court of public opinion, such an individual can be queered and rendered indigestible, motives rubbished, intentions trashed. Cheeky public disclosure contrarians can be dismissed as cranks and discredited.
Once Michael Pompeo assumed the reins at the Central Intelligence Agency, WikiLeaks became something of an obsession, fascinating given Donald Trump’s sheer delight over its releases of those Democratic emails that holed Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is,” he told an audience at the Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS) on April 13, 2017, “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Such a perspective led to brazen efforts by the Spanish private security firm UC Global, hired to furnish surveillance equipment to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, to spy upon Assange and his various colleagues and confidantes. The firm, through its chief executive David Morales, was knee-deep with the Central Intelligence Agency and delighted to be of assistance.
The extent of Morales’s zeal alarmed a few former employees of the company, a point they were unreserved in expressing in the Old Bailey proceedings in September last year. “Around June 2017, while I was sourcing providers for the new camera equipment, David Morales instructed that the cameras should allow streaming capabilities so that ‘our friends’ in the United States’, as Morales explicitly put it, would be able to gain access to the interior of the embassy in real time. This request alarmed me greatly, and in order to impede the request, I claimed that remote access via streaming via the camera circuit was not technically achievable.” That witness noted Morales’s wish to bug the entire embassy and suggested that the purpose of installing microphones had been at the behest of the United States to target Assange’s legal representatives.
This was merely the start. One of the witnesses (for convenience, called Witness 2), revealed how Morales had asked him to “steal a nappy of a baby which according to the company’s security personnel deployed at the embassy, regularly visited Mr Assange.” The act was designed to ascertain whether, in fact, it came from “a child of the asylee.” It was “the Americans”, Morales claimed, “who wanted to establish paternity.”
Frustrated by a lack of movement on expelling Assange from the embassy, US officials began teasing out options. According to the second witness, “the Americans were desperate [in December 2017] and that they had even suggested that more extreme measures should be employed against the ‘guest’ to put an end to the situation of Assange’s permanence in the embassy.” An “accident” was proposed, one that could be claimed for covering an operation “which would allow persons to enter from outside the embassy and kidnap the asylee”. And just in case such a scenario would not unfold, another, more final suggestion was put on the table: a handy poisoning.
As is often the nature of the modern news cycle, such damnable revelations are dips in what is otherwise a more substantive, disturbing story. It takes such reports as those of Yahoo!News to add a chilling confirmation. To the credit of the authors, much flesh is added to the narrative. A former Trump national security official is cited as claiming that the administration was “seeing blood” after WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files, a set of hacking tools developed by the CIA. “This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred millions line of code,” crowed WikiLeaks in a press release at the time, “gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA.”
But the interest in gathering material on the organisation in the intelligence community began prior, inspired by the revelations of Edward Snowden in June 2013 about the warrantless and expansive surveillance programs of the National Security Agency. Within the CIA, the Office of Transnational Issues got busy establishing its own “WikiLeaks team”. The intelligence community was abuzz with efforts to give the publishing outfit a different designation as “information brokers”.
With the publication of leaked Democratic Party emails, the belief among some intelligence operatives that Assange “was acting in collusion with people who were using him to hurt the interests of the United States” became, according to the community’s senior lawyer Robert Litt, palpable. With Trump taking up residence in the White House, a counterintelligence official could only remark that, “Nobody in that crew was going to be too broken up about the First Amendment issues.”
The Yahoo report is also filled with the wet dreams of adolescent functionaries pondering how the Australian might have made a dash for it. One of these involved the prospect that Assange might be spirited away by Russian agents after being granted diplomatic status by Ecuador. Scenarios involved crashing into any vehicle transporting Assange, snatching him and shooting the tyres of any plane intended to carry him to Moscow. “It was going to be like a prison break movie,” one former senior administration official fantasised with relish.
Outside the embassy, the area got cluttered with spooks and operatives. “It got to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services – whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards.”
Within some channels of the US government, concerns were aired that the rendition and kidnapping enthusiasts were getting out of hand. The fairly obvious point was expressed by some NSC officials that any such operation would be illegal. “You can’t throw people in a car and kidnap them,” a former national security official warned.
In the spring of 2017, assassination made it to the front of the queue as a possible remedy. President Trump put out the feelers for some advice. “It was viewed as unhinged and ridiculous,” a former senior CIA official is reported as saying. Another claimed that those proposing the idea “were just spitballing”, all part of an atmosphere where Trump was just being Trump. The spit balls in question evidently lingered long enough for rough sketches to be drawn up contemplating Assange’s murder and WikiLeaks members with access to the Vault 7 trove.
Assange’s US lawyer Barry Pollack wishes that this grubby state of affairs will lead to a sensible conclusion. “My hope and expectation is that the UK courts will consider this information and it will further bolster its decision not to extradite to the US.” The US appeal against the refusal to extradite Assange will be doing its best to avoid such thorny, and telling, revelations. Assange’s defence team will be doing their best to foil such efforts.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image: Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison in 2019 (Source: WSWS)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Today in La Spezia the Minister of Defense Lorenzo Guerini inaugurates SeaFuture 2021, the military-naval exhibition sponsored by the main war industries. In the lead Fincantieri (“strategic sponsor”), Leonardo (“platinum sponsor”) and Mbda (European joint venture in which Leonardo has 25%) which participates as “gold sponsor”.
The “Future” has already been outlined in the “Directive for the industrial policy of Defense”, issued by Guerini on July 29: Italy must “have a military instrument capable of expressing the advanced military capabilities that the country needs to protect its national interests”, which ensures “its membership in the circle of technologically and economically advanced countries”. The Directive, overturning Article 11 and other constitutional principles with the silent consent of Parliament, establishes that Italy must increasingly arm itself.
At the same time it establishes that Italy must maintain and strengthen “the strategic relationship with the United States, to ensure the involvement in technological innovation that finds in the U.S. one of the main incubators, to facilitate access of Italian companies in the American market and to better position Italy in the European context.
The line traced by the Directive has already been operational for some time. Suffice it to recall: the boarding on the aircraft carrier Cavour, the Navy’s flagship, of the US F-35B short take-off and vertical landing fighter aircraft, for which the ship was certified at Norfolk in Virginia; the decision to arm Italian submarines and frigates with Cruise missiles with a range of at least 1,000 km; the decision to arm the Reaper drones, which Italy has purchased from the US. These and other armaments, with which our armed forces are equipped, are not for defense but for attack.
The Cavour armed with the F-35B becomes an advanced military base that, deployed in distant theaters of war, can attack and invade a country; the submarines and frigates can strike a country from a great distance with cruise missiles that, flying at very low altitude over the sea and along the contour of the land, escape anti-aircraft defences; the Reaper drones, remotely controlled from thousands of kilometres away, can strike human “targets” with Infernal Fire missiles and laser or satellite guided bombs. Italy is thus arming itself to participate in other wars under US/NATO command.
The “strategic relationship with the United States”, established by the Directive, is getting stronger every day. The Fincantieri group, 70% controlled by the Ministry of Economy, has three shipyards in the USA, where it is building ten multi-role frigates for the US Navy and four similar warships for Saudi Arabia. Leonardo – the largest Italian military industry, which derives over 70% of its turnover from armaments – supplies products and services to the US armed forces and intelligence agencies, and in Italy manages the Cameri plant for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighters. The 30% of the shareholding of the Leonardo group belongs to the Ministry of Economic Development.
For this reason, at the military exhibition in La Spezia, alongside Minister Guerini of the PD, Minister Giorgetti of the League participates. Described as an “expert in accounts”, he is in charge of managing the 30 billion euros already allocated by the Ministry of Economic Development for military purposes and the other 25 required by the Recovery Fund. The 26 billion euros spent annually by the Ministry of Defence are no longer enough. It is necessary to pass to at least 36 billion per year, as requested by NATO and reiterated by the US.
Just to make a few figures, the aircraft carrier Cavour cost 1.3 billion euros, the 15 F-35Bs for the Navy cost 1.7 billion, and to these are added another 15 F-35Bs and 60 F-35As with nuclear capability for the Air Force. Then there are the operational expenses: one day of navigation of the Cavour costs over 200 thousand euros and one hour of flight of an F-35 over 40 thousand euros. Always with public money subtracted from the social species, invested in weapons and wars to “protect our national interests and belong to the circle of economically advanced countries.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The FDA ignored warnings before the vaccine was distributed that it would likely cause organ damage; data published before and after the program was initiated showed it was the spike protein that damaged the microvasculature
An analysis of 789 professional athletes with COVID-19 showed no adverse cardiac events in healthy individuals; however, the VAERS shows 11,793 people who had a heart attack or diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis after the jab
Data from a patient group treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko showed none of the 3,000 patients he treated within the first five day of the onset of COVID-19 went on to develop long-haul symptoms, including fatigue, brain fog or difficulty breathing
The list of people reporting adverse events from the jab is growing. To tell their stories, two websites have been created since social media platforms are routinely removing any information about adverse events
*
This video from the Front Line doctors White Coat Summit was published in mid-August. In it, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole succinctly outlines many of the health challenges associated with the experimental genetic therapy injection program. He asks, after thousands of people have died from the injection, where are the autopsies to investigate this investigational program?
In July 2021, the U.S. military published a study in JAMA Cardiology1 in which they asked the question if myocarditis was a possible adverse event following a jab with mRNA COVID-19 injection. They identified 23 men who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 4 days of getting the shot. They determined that there was a diagnosis of myocarditis after “vaccination in the absence of other identified causes.”2
And yet, despite finding myocarditis in previously healthy individuals following the shot, the writers only recommended vigilance. The heart problems in 23 military men who had signed up to protect the citizens of the U.S., “should not diminish overall confidence in vaccinations during the current pandemic.”3
As of September 3, 2021, the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS)4 had received 675,591 reports of adverse events following vaccination. Of these, there were 14,506 deaths, 6,422 heart attacks and 5,371 cases of pericarditis or myocarditis.
It is important to note that the VAERS has tracked adverse events since 1990. In 2019, there were 605 reports of deaths from all vaccines given. In 2021, there were 14,594 deaths reported in nine months.
Although these numbers are significant, a 2010 Harvard study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services revealed data demonstrating the VAERS likely only represents approximately 1% of those who are injured.5
In light of these statistics and knowing the new shot program was experimental, December 18, 2020, the Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief legal counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, requested the Biden Administration consider establishing a “comprehensive, high integrity system to monitor adverse outcomes following vaccination.”6
In early 2020, many clinicians, scientists and other health experts warned that millions of people may experience potentially permanent or long-term injury or death after the shot. Interestingly, it is the call for greater surveillance of vaccine injury that has, in part, generated censorship from social media platforms through AI surveillance of your posts.
Spike Protein Damages Endothelial Cells and Hurts Heart
Dr. J. Patrick Whelan is a pediatric rheumatologist who warned the FDA of the microvascular injury the vaccine may cause to the kidneys, brain, liver and heart before it was released to the public. Whelan specializes in treating children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), which is associated with coronavirus infections.7
He did not dispute the potential benefit the vaccine might have to arrest the spread of the virus, but instead cautioned that recipients may experience permanent damage to their microvasculature. At the time, his concern was based on data scientists and doctors were reporting after an infection with COVID-19 affected multiple organs beyond the lungs.
In March 2021, a research study was published in the American Heart Association’s journal Circulation.8 However, it is important to note that the study was preprinted online in December 2020,9 before the first vaccine was administered in the U.S.10
This is important, since the study demonstrated that the spike protein associated with SARS-CoV-2 damages endothelial function.11 In other words, before the emergency use authorization jab that injected instructions to create the spike protein was first administered, the CDC, FDA and NIAID were well aware the spike protein was likely causing damage to the endothelial cells lining the circulatory system.
This information was not discussed in the media and not considered by the FDA, and it continues to be buried as government agencies push for 100% vaccination in the U.S. In the study, the researchers created a pseudo-virus12 that contained the spike protein but did not contain the virus. Using an animal model, they showed that the virus was not necessary to create damage and inflammation.13
When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab.
The results also revealed that the virus could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide bioavailability.14 Co-senior scientist of the study, Uri Manor, explained in a press release from Salk Institute:15
“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID. Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”
Further Study Demonstrates the Effect of the Spike Protein
Then, a second paper16 was published online March 8, 2021, investigated the potential that the spike protein is an inflammagen, or an irritant that can trigger inflammation at the cellular level. The researchers sought to determine if the spike protein was the underlying cause of the hypercoagulation found with a COVID-19 infection.
Mass spectrometry showed the spike protein damaged fibrinogen, prothrombin and complement 3, all compounds used in coagulation. They suggested that the presence of the protein was contributing to hypercoagulation and may result in large microclots that have been observed in plasma samples from patients infected with COVID-19.
Again, science demonstrated that it wasn’t the virus causing endothelial damage that led to organ damage, such as was found in the heart, liver and kidney of COVID-19 patients. Rather, it was the spike protein that was also being injected in a genetic therapy shot program.
A third study published April 27, 2021, again demonstrated in an animal model that exposure to the spike protein alone was enough to induce severe lung damage.17 And yet, there was no move by governmental agencies to slow the distribution of this genetic experiment.
Researchers have continued to study how the spike protein affects the endothelial cells, and ultimately damages the heart muscle. A study published June 2021 in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine18 demonstrated that the spike protein down regulates the expression of junctional proteins found in the arteries. They concluded:
“… these experiments reveal that Spike-induced degradation of endothelial junctional proteins affects endothelial barrier function and is the likely cause of vascular damage observed in COVID-19 affected individuals.”
Even as researchers identify the pathway the spike protein takes to damage the endothelial cells, it is patently ignored by the mainstream media, governmental agencies and many health experts who continue to push the public into vaccinating with a genetic therapy injection that does not effectively keep you from getting the disease or stop you from spreading the disease.
Infection Starts and May Stay in the Lungs
Interestingly, another study19 published in March 2021 questioned if the prevalence of inflammatory heart disease after COVID-19 infection in professional athletes would affect their ability to return to play.
The researchers evaluated 789 professional athletes who had COVID-19 and found no adverse cardiac events in those who underwent cardiac screening. In this group of healthy individuals, it appeared very rare for there to be systemic involvement of the spike protein.
However, in the VAERS reports September 3, 2021, there were a total of 11,793 individuals who suffered heart attack, myocarditis or pericarditis in the nine months that the vaccine had been administered.20 The effect of COVID-19 on the heart is well documented.21
In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko22 in February 2021, we discussed the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. At that point, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and only three of his high-risk patients had subsequently succumbed to the disease.
While the focus of the interview was on treatment protocols and the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko shared an interesting statistic about his protocol. In the early months of COVID-19, Zelenko decided to treat his high-risk patients as early as possible, without waiting for severe symptoms. This turned out to be one key to his significant success.
His understanding of the mechanism behind hydroxychloroquine and zinc led to using the combination alongside azithromycin, to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other bacterial infections common with COVID.
What is interesting are the statistics for Zelenko’s patients with long haul symptoms. Data from the University of Washington in 2021 found 32.7% of outpatients with COVID-19 go on to experience persistent symptoms.23,24 However, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients and none who received treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms. His data was from the same period as that of the University of Washington.
While he has had patients with persistent symptoms from COVID-19, they sought medical care after the first five days of symptoms, which meant the inflammatory process had advanced. From his experience, and the experience of the patients he treated, early intervention with the protocol nearly eliminated the risk of persistent symptoms.
Long Haul Symptoms May Be Related to Spike Damage
The symptoms that may last for weeks or months after a COVID-19 infection are referred to as long-haul symptoms. For some, this may be the result of vascular damage caused by the spike protein. The CDC25 reports that a combination of the following symptoms without an active COVID infection can appear weeks after the infection and last for months.
Scientists now know that the predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.26 A review in Physiological Reports27 examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.
The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia-related inflammation and lead to long-haul symptoms. Unlike Zelenko’s patients who did not have long-haul symptoms, participants in an online survey published in EClinical Medicine did not fare so well.28
The study revealed data from 3,762 participants with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in 56 countries. For the majority, it took greater than 35 weeks to recover from all their symptoms. The data showed that people experienced an average of 55.9 symptoms across 9.1 organ systems. The most frequent symptoms six months after infection were cognitive dysfunction, fatigue and post-exertional malaise.
List of Vaccine Side Effects Is Growing
As the list of people reporting adverse events after the vaccine continues to grow, social media platforms are working just as hard to suppress any information about the list of side effects people are experiencing.
In order to tell their stories, people are posting videos, still photos and evidence of their vaccine injury at No More Silence29 and 1000 COVID Stories.30 One example is Sarah Green, a 16-year-old student who is experiencing debilitating symptoms. This is her story as told by her mother:31
“Within a few weeks, she developed a bad stutter and started experiencing uncontrollable head movements. She looked like someone who has Parkinson’s. She had never stuttered or had these tics before.
She was admitted to the hospital where she spent two nights and underwent numerous tests, before being discharged and told that it was a ‘nervous tic,’ and to see a mental health provider.
‘We asked several times if it could be the vaccine and we were ignored, until one doctor told us that he had no idea what it was, but it was ‘absolutely not the vaccine’ and we couldn’t blame everything on that.’
Her parents argued for a referral to see a neurologist, who diagnosed Sarah with Functional Movement Disorder, and told that it was “related to the vaccine, but not vaccine related.” They also said that it was an ‘extremely rare’ side effect, despite having seen several cases of it in their own practice over the past year.
Sarah had ended the last school year with a 4.7 GPA and was enrolled in an Early College program, on track to graduate with an Associates Degree. Given her current physical condition and limitations, she had no choice but to drop her college classes for this upcoming semester.
She has started her regular classes but has found it impossible to look down or write without triggering violent tremors and spasms. Her teacher will be typing her notes for her.
‘I am heartbroken because she has worked so hard and everything has changed for her — and I’m so damn mad! Our whole lives have changed, and for what what? A vaccine that doesn’t even work! My hope is that you, the reader, will be able to make an informed decision when deciding whether you get the vaccine or not. We were not afforded that opportunity.’”
It is crucial to report a vaccine injury or side effect to VAERS, as the data are essential in helping individuals, doctors and researchers make informed decisions. You can make your own report online or using a PDF by going to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.32 You’ll find more information about adverse events and how vaccines affect your health at the National Vaccine Information Center.33
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Author Edmond B. Paré has provided a careful and incisive review of vaccine injuries reported by Hospital Nurse Whistleblowers.
***
Hospital nurse whistleblowers are reporting that it is mostly the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated who are going to the hospital; and, their symptoms are not the symptoms of respiratory Covid-19 patients.
The symptoms these nurses name are those in the list that the FDA has been hiding from the public, as well as from these healthcare workers as well as from the recipients of the Covid-19 vaccine.
Thus, the FDA is in violation of FDA EUA requirements, as well as FDA approved vaccine informed consent requirements (once the Comirnaty jabs start).
For examples, please consider the following hospital nurse whistleblower interview statements:
Interview of a nurse who has worked with Covid patients since the start of the “pandemic”
At time = 6:43, this nurse whistleblower states, “The influx (of patients) I have seen is since the vaccination rollout and it’s more vaccination-related injuries, umm, blood clots, cardiac issues, neurological issues, balance issues, cognitive issues, aggressive behavior, encephalopathy, things like that that were, that are very different from the, the previous Covid.”
ICU Nurse: I would like to think they’re vaccine injuries. Um, again, these physicians will never acknowledge that. But, I have never seen so many spontaneous strokes, um, deadly strokes, mulitple strokes, um, bizarre rashes all over the body. I have never seen such young people come in with cardiac arrest. I have never performed so much cardiac arrest on young people with no, no reason.
Stew Peters: So, these are previously healthy people. All of a sudden they have heart issues; They’re having strokes.
Stew Peters: What about vaccine injuries? Are you seeing some of the things that have been reported, ah, we’re seeing, ah, young people with mycarditis, heart issues; we’re seeing a lot of strokes and antibody dependent enhancement. Are you seeing these things first hand in your hospital?
Nurse Whistleblower:We are seeing those things. We actually had a paramedic in our hospital die within seven days of receiving the vaccine. He had had a prior Covid infection and he had a massive heart attack within seven days of having the vaccine and, and, that, that hit home.
That was personal. And, um, yes, we are seeing the vaccine injuries, Stew. We’re seeing an increase in strokes, an increase in MIs, pulmonary embolisms, blood clots in the legs, cognitive decline – major cognitive decline in the older population, neurological symptoms. We’re seeing all of that, Stew. And, and it is, again, it is just criminal that their stories are not being told.
Interview of a 30-year nurse, currently at the Univ of Vermont Medical Center
Stew Peters: Sandy says that she has questioned at least three doctors about the huge amount of anomalies that they’ve encountered treating Covid patients. She says that she’s seen at least five patients who, in her view, are one hundred percent cases linked with the Covid vaccines. There’s a young woman, a diabetic, for example, who is suddenly hospitalized with her (Sandy’s) first case of hyperglycemia – in a decade; a man in his early thirties with cardiac issues out of nowhere; and, then, much weirder things. A twenty-something with head to toe rashes like she’s never seen before; a woman with circular rashes and bloated, purple genitalia, not terribly unlike a female version of Nicki Minaj’s cousin’s friend.
My summary of the remaining interview:
Shortly following the (December, 2020) Covid-19 vaccine rollouts, for the first time in this nurse’s experience, “tons” of patients began presenting themselves to her hospital not with normal cases characterized by common disease symptoms, but with symptoms she had never seen before, not even when working in cancer related cases, some of these symptoms being “absolutely bizarre”.
Apparently, the CDC has instructed physicians that they are not allowed to question new patients regarding their Covid-19 vaccination status;
And, this directive is then imposed as a mandate to be followed all hospital’s healthcare workers. The consequence, is that doctors are not reporting these cases to VAERS because they are frequently not in a position to establish whether these patients are vaccinated or whether the patients symptoms could be caused by the Covid-19 vaccine.
Nurses are having to beat around the bush to try to determine whether these patients have been vaccinated; but, apparently, they are successful in doing so.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on Hospital Nurse Whistleblowers on Vaccine Injuries: “Deadly Strokes, Bizarre Rashes, Cardiac Arrest, Blood Clots in the Legs, Neurological Symptoms”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This past week maneuvers within the Democratic party intensified over the content and magnitude of the two pending fiscal stimulus bills–the Infrastructure Bill (with $550B of net new spending) and the Reconciliation Bill ( with initial $3.5T ‘human infrastructure & climate change’ spending).
While the maneuvering appears as a deep difference of views between progressives in the US House and Senate demanding both bills pass simultaneously and Democrat Senators, Manchin and Senema in that body blocking both bills in current form, the actual conflict is really between the corporate wing of the Democratic party (in both the Senate and House) vs. the wing that sees passage of both bills in current corm as necessary to ensure a sustained economic recovery in 2022–and thus the Democrats retaining majorities in the House and Senate in the November 2022 midterm elections.
Manchin-Senema in the Senate and Cuellar and his ten associates in the House are really the point persons for the corporate wing. The differences and split within the Democratic party are not about individual Senators or Representatives; it’s about the corporate forces that dominate and control the majority of that party (as they have since 1990) and those same corporate interests intent on ensuring the two spending bills are not so large that taxes will have to be significantly raised in order to pay for them. More specifically, ensuring that the Trump $4.5T tax cuts of 2017 are not rolled back.
Those corporate interests in the Democratic party have already prevailed in rolling back the Infrastructure bill to a level of only $550B in new spending (from its original $2.3T) to ensure paying for the $550B is not done by raising any taxes on corporations, investors and wealthiest Americans. They already succeeded. Now the same fight is underway to prevent the Reconciliation bill requiring tax hikes on the same capital incomes. To ensure no tax hikes for that bill, spending will have to be significantly cut or delayed, or perhaps both.
In other words, the split in the party and fight is not just over stimulus spending; it’s over taxes and rolling back the Trump tax cuts. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is as opposed to the tax hikes as are the Republican party & McConnell. To borrow a phrase from the 1990s: “it’s the tax cuts, stupid!”.
The next step in the corporate wing’s anti-tax hike offensive will occur in the US House early next week. Pelosi had promised weeks ago not to break out the two bills for separate votes, but vote on both at the same time. That was the promise made to the party’s progressive forces months back, in order to get Sanders and progressives in the Senate and the progressive caucus in the House to go along and remove trillions of dollars in spending on human infrastructure measures from the original Infrastructure bill and reduce that bill from $2.3T to only $550B in new spending on traditional infrastructure only.
That made the Infrastructure bill palatable to the corporate wing in the party since paying for it could now be done by ‘smoke & mirrors’ financing that involved no tax hikes. The corporate wing wants separate votes now on the two bills, the remaining Infrastructure bill first. Passing the watered down Infrastructure bill first would leave the $3.5T Reconciliation bill with weakened support and unable to pass–for certain in the Senate and maybe even in the House as well. Human infrastructure spending on Medicare, Education, Elderly-Child care, and climate change mitigation and prevention–and the tax hikes to pay for it–would be dead in the water.
The progressive caucus in the House and the Sanders-Warren faction in the Senate are demanding, however, that Pelosi honor her earlier pledge to vote on both bills at the same time. But will she? If she renegs on that promise and the House votes up both bills, the corporate wing in the Senate–represented by Manchin-Senema–will never vote for budget reconciliation (50 + 1 vote) to pass either of the two bills. The Senate likely will then vote on the Infrastructure bill and let the $3.5T Reconciliation bill die. That will put Pelosi and the House progressives behind the eight ball, as they say: refuse to vote for the Senate passed Infrastructure bill or take the heat in elections for refusing to pass anything. One can guess what the pragmatists will then do, including Pelosi.
So what are the possible scenarios in the House this coming week?
One will be for Pelosi to vote on both bills as promised. While possible, it is the least likely to happen, however.
A second is to reduce the $3.5T spending total dramatically. The progressive caucus won’t go along with that, however.
How then to ‘reconcile the reconciliation bill’?
A more likely compromise outcome may be to backload most of the $3.5T (or a reduced amount). That is, make the Reconciliation bill spending take effect over a ten or even fifteen year period, with most of the spending occurring five to ten years into the 10-15 year bill. So maybe spend $1.5T over the first five to 7 years (Manchin’s signal he might accept) and the rest not taking effect until 2027 or after. In turn, make the proposed tax hikes to pay for it to take effect in the latter years as well.
That way Pelosi can placate the progressive caucus and the Democrats can still say they passed a big ‘human infrastructure’ Reconciliation bill. Backloading might then satisfy Manchin, Cuellar, Senema, and the party’s corporate wing. They can say they ‘won’, since the spending and taxing is only on paper. Republicans and McConnell will later cut the backload spending and delete the tax hikes once they take over again. That scenario could satisfy the Democrats’ corporate wing.
Another scenario may be for Pelosi not to hold a simultaneous dual vote because her progressive caucus won’t support a breaking out of the votes and will vote against the Infrastructure bill if held separate. In this case, Pelosi and the Democrats will then revert to the tried and true Democrat party ‘fall back’ message saying they’ll return to the vote on both bills after the 2022 midterms. That means everyone should vote for more Democrats in 2022 in order to pass both bills in 2023. But that’s a high risk strategy, since it will clearly appear that Biden and the Democrats can’t deliver on their election promises–especially if the US economic recovery is not robust by fall of 2022 due to lack of fiscal stimulus in fall of 2021, which is very likely since the current summer 2021 rebound of the economy already appears to be slowing.
So summing up: the three scenarios in the House are: Pelosi votes both bills up same time and they both pass; Pelosi renegs and holds separate votes and progressives vote down both bills; Pelosi and progressives agree on a ‘smoke & mirrors’ compromise and backload most of Reconciliation bill spending and taxing.
The first scenario almost ensures Manchin-Senema will never compromise and vote for Senate budget reconciliation on either bills. The second means Biden and Democrats are ‘toast’ in 2022 midterms. Something like the third may therefore be the most likely outcome.
Whatever the scenario, it was already decided by party leaders last week when Biden called Shumer and Pelosi into his office, reportedly in a closed door meeting that no one else attended. Biden thereafter called in separately a group of progressives and then a group of ‘moderates’ (i.e. what the mainstream media calls the corporate wing). Reportedly both Shumer and Pelosi came out of the meeting smiling and upbeat. What did they agree to with Biden? Not even Democrat members in the House or Senate know, since Pelosi-Shumer aren’t even telling them.
It all should become clearer this coming week. But one thing is certain: the final $3.5T Reconciliation bill with its spending on human infrastructure and climate change will be either significantly reduced or backloaded into out years so that the spending & tax measures can be safely deleted.
The Democrat corporate wing is as adamantly opposed to the spending–and the tax hikes it would require–as are McConnell and his Republicans. Thousands of corporate lobbyists have invaded Washington D.C. in recent months, with the single purpose of demanding the Democrats don’t touch the Trump tax cuts. They have already convinced both Republicans and the Democrat’s corporate wing not to raise their taxes. So watch for ‘smoke & mirrors’ financing in a final, much reduced spending Reconciliation bill–just as the same was previously engineered with the Infrastructure bill.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Jack Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Matt Kenyon/Financial Times
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In October 2019, in a speech at an International Monetary Fund conference, former Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned that the world was sleepwalking towards a fresh economic and financial crisis that would have devastating consequences for what he called the “democratic market system”.
According to King, the global economy was stuck in a low growth trap and recovery from the crisis of 2008 was weaker than that after the Great Depression. He concluded that it was time for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to begin talks behind closed doors with politicians.
In the repurchase agreement (repo) market, interest rates soared on 16 September. The Federal Reserve stepped in by intervening to the tune of $75 billion per day over four days, a sum not seen since the 2008 crisis.
At that time, according to Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory at Cardiff University, the Fed began an emergency monetary programme that saw hundreds of billions of dollars per week pumped into Wall Street.
Over the last 18 months or so, under the guise of a ‘pandemic’, we have seen economies closed down, small businesses being crushed, workers being made unemployed and people’s rights being destroyed. Lockdowns and restrictions have facilitated this process. The purpose of these so-called ‘public health measures’ has little to do with public health and much to do with managing a crisis of capitalism and ultimately the restructuring of the economy.
Neoliberalism has squeezed workers income and benefits, offshored key sectors of economies and has used every tool at its disposal to maintain demand and create financial Ponzi schemes in which the rich can still invest in and profit from. The bailouts to the banking sector following the 2008 crash provided only temporary respite. The crash returned with a much bigger bang pre-Covid along with multi-billion-dollar bailouts.
The dystopian ‘great reset’ that we are currently witnessing is a response to this crisis. This reset envisages a transformation of capitalism.
Fabio Vighi sheds light on the role of the ‘pandemic’ in all of this:
“… some may have started wondering why the usually unscrupulous ruling elites decided to freeze the global profit-making machine in the face of a pathogen that targets almost exclusively the unproductive (over 80s).”
Vighi describes how, in pre-Covid times, the world economy was on the verge of another colossal meltdown and chronicles how the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers and others worked to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.
The world economy was suffocating under an unsustainable mountain of debt. Many companies could not generate enough profit to cover interest payments on their own debts and were staying afloat only by taking on new loans. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were rising everywhere.
Lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets (under the guise of COVID) with freshly printed money while shutting down the real economy to avoid hyperinflation.
Vighi says:
“… the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off.”
It all amounted to a multi-trillion bailout for Wall Street under the guise of COVID ‘relief’ followed by an ongoing plan to fundamentally restructure capitalism that involves smaller enterprises being driven to bankruptcy or bought up by monopolies and global chains, thereby ensuring continued viable profits for these predatory corporations, and the eradication of millions of jobs resulting from lockdowns and accelerated automation.
“It retains all the cruelties of the free market for those who live and work in the real world, but turns the paper economy into a state protectorate, surrounded by a kind of Trumpian Money Wall that is designed to keep the investor class safe from fear of loss. This financial economy is a fantasy casino, where the winnings are real but free chips cover the losses. For a rarefied segment of society, failure is being written out of the capitalist bargain.”
The World Economic Forum says that by 2030 the public will ‘rent’ everything they require. This means undermining the right of ownership (or possibly seizing personal assets) and restricting consumer choice underpinned by the rhetoric of reducing public debt or ‘sustainable consumption’, which will be used to legitimise impending austerity as a result of the economic meltdown. Ordinary people will foot the bill for the ‘COVID relief’ packages.
If the financial bailouts do not go according to plan, we could see further lockdowns imposed, perhaps justified under the pretext of ‘the virus’ but also ‘climate emergency’.
It is not only Big Finance that has been saved. A previously ailing pharmaceuticals industry has also received a massive bailout (public funds to develop and purchase the vaccines) and lifeline thanks to the money-making COVID jabs.
The lockdowns and restrictions we have seen since March 2020 have helped boost the bottom line of global chains and the e-commerce giants as well and have cemented their dominance. At the same time, fundamental rights have been eradicated under COVID government measures.
Capitalism and labour
Essential to this ‘new normal’ is the compulsion to remove individual liberties and personal freedoms. A significant part of the working class has long been deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ – such people were sacrificed on the altar of neo-liberalism. They lost their jobs due to automation and offshoring. Since then, this section of the population has had to rely on meagre state welfare and run-down public services or, if ‘lucky’, insecure low-paid service sector jobs.
What we saw following the 2008 crash was ordinary people being pushed further to the edge. After a decade of ‘austerity’ in the UK – a neoliberal assault on the living conditions of ordinary people carried out under the guise of reining in public debt following the bank bail outs – a leading UN poverty expert compared Conservative welfare policies to the creation of 19th-century workhouses and warned that, unless austerity is ended, the UK’s poorest people face lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, accused ministers of being in a state of denial about the impact of policies. He accused them of the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”.
In another 2019 report, the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank laid the blame for more than 130,000 deaths in the UK since 2012 at the door of government policies. It claimed that these deaths could have been prevented if improvements in public health policy had not stalled as a direct result of austerity cuts.
Over the past 10 years in the UK, according to the Trussell Group, there has been rising food poverty and increasing reliance on food banks.
And in a damning report on poverty in the UK by Professor David Gordon of the University of Bristol, it was found that almost 18 million cannot afford adequate housing conditions, 12 million are too poor to engage in common social activities, one in three cannot afford to heat their homes adequately in winter and four million children and adults are not properly fed (Britain’s population is estimated at around 66 million).
Moreover, a 2015 report by the New Policy Institute noted that the total number of people in poverty in the UK had increased by 800,000, from 13.2 to 14.0 million in just two to three years.
Meanwhile, The Equality Trust in 2018 reported that the ‘austerity’ years were anything but austere for the richest 1,000 people in the UK. They had increased their wealth by £66 billion in one year alone (2017-2018), by £274 billion in five years (2013-2018) and had increased their total wealth to £724 billion – significantly more than the poorest 40% of households combined (£567 billion).
Just some of the cruelties of the ‘free market’ for those who live and work in the real world. And all of this hardship prior to lockdowns that have subsequently devastated lives, livelihoods and health, with cancer diagnoses and treatments and other conditions having been neglected due to the shutdown of health services.
During the current economic crisis, what we are seeing is many millions around the world being robbed of their livelihoods. With AI and advanced automation of production, distribution and service provision on the immediate horizon, a mass labour force will no longer be required.
It raises fundamental questions about the need for and the future of mass education, welfare and healthcare provision and systems that have traditionally served to reproduce and maintain labour that capitalist economic activity has required.
As the economic is restructured, labour’s relationship to capital is being transformed. If work is a condition of the existence of the labouring classes, then, in the eyes of capitalists, why maintain a pool of (surplus) labour that is no longer needed?
A concentration of wealth power and ownership is taking place as a result of COVID-related policies: according to research by Oxfam, the world’s billionaires gained $3.9 trillion while working people lost $3.7 trillion in 2020. At the same time, as large sections of the population head into a state of permanent unemployment, the rulers are weary of mass dissent and resistance. We are witnessing an emerging biosecurity surveillance state designed to curtail liberties ranging from freedom of movement and assembly to political protest and free speech.
In 2020, World Bank Group President David Malpass stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns but such ‘help’ would be on condition that neoliberal reforms become further embedded. In other words, the de facto privatisation of states (affecting all nations, rich and poor alike), the (complete) erosion of national sovereignty and dollar-denominated debt leading to a further strengthening of US leverage and power.
In a system of top-down surveillance capitalism with an increasing section of the population deemed ‘unproductive’ and ‘useless eaters’, notions of individualism, liberal democracy and the ideology of free choice and consumerism are regarded by the elite as ‘unnecessary luxuries’ along with political and civil rights and freedoms.
We need only look at the ongoing tyranny in Australia to see where other countries could be heading. How quickly Australia was transformed from a ‘liberal democracy’ to a brutal totalitarian police state of endless lockdowns where gathering and protests are not to be tolerated.
Being beaten and thrown to the ground and fired at with rubber bullets in the name of protecting health makes as much sense as devastating entire societies through socially and economically destructive lockdowns to ‘save lives’.
It makes as much sense as mask-wearing and social-distancing mandates unsupported by science, misused and flawed PCR tests, perfectly healthy people being labelled as ‘cases’, deliberately inflated COVID death figures, pushing dangerous experimental vaccines in the name of health, ramping up fear, relying on Neil Ferguson’s bogus modelling, censoring debate about any of this and the WHO declaring a worldwide ‘pandemic’ based on a very low number of global ‘cases’ back in early 2020 (44,279 ‘cases’ and 1,440 supposed COVID deaths outside China out of a population of 6.4 billion).
There is little if any logic to this. But of course, If we view what is happening in terms of a crisis of capitalism, it might begin to make a lot more sense.
The austerity measures that followed the 2008 crash were bad enough for ordinary people who were still reeling from the impacts when the first lockdown was imposed.
The authorities are aware that deeper, harsher impacts as well as much more wide-ranging changes will be experienced this time around and seem adamant that the masses must become more tightly controlled and conditioned to their coming servitude.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This article celebrates the amazing bravery of a physician and senior military officer attacking the evil stupidity and anti-science character of the public health establishment. Standing up to the coercive mandates to force COVID vaccine shots for large segments of the population that have far more risks than benefits from them. Notably children, those with natural immunity and healthy, young military personnel. This hero needs massive public support. She should become a shining example for all physicians to fight for both medical freedom and genuine science.
In this pandemic where truths are crowded out by propaganda and political insanity, it is critically important to credit a truly remarkable document by a courageous medical professional.
Here are highlights from such a document, well worth the attention of all those who genuinely have informed concerns about current COVID vaccines.
Physician and Army Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long is a rare, courageous truth-teller willing to probably jeopardize a military career for the greater good. To try and steer the Department of Defense to policies that protect military personnel from dangerous and unnecessary COVID vaccines and defend our national defense.
Here is an initial observation: “Use of mRNA vaccines in our fighting force, presents a risk of undetermined magnitude, in a population in which less than 20 active-duty personnel out of 1.4 million, died of the underlying SARs- CoV-2.” Statistical truths are routinely ignored by government officials mismanaging the pandemic.
Dr. Long focused on a now widely recognized health impact of current COVID vaccines, saying “vaccination with mRNA increases the risk of myocarditis.” “Research shows that most individuals with myocarditis do not have any symptoms. Complications of myocarditis include dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death and carries a mortality rate of 20% at one year and 50% at 5 years. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, “despite optimal medical management, overall mortality has not changed in the last 30 years.’”
‘We must establish a screening program to identify those at increased risk of myocarditis, i.e., those that have, received mRNA vaccinations with [Pfizer] or Moderna, or have any of the following symptoms chest pain, shortness of breath or palpitations”
With regard to the Pfizer vaccine,
“One of the primary ingredients of the Lipid Nanoparticle delivery system is “ALC 1035.” This is a toxic material. It “comprises between 30-50% of the total ingredients.”
Among a number of serious possible effects is this reality: “Caution: Product has not been fully validated for medical applications. For research use only.” Also noted: “Other journals and scientific papers also denote that this particular ingredient has never been used in humans before.” The Colonel correctly notes
“My assessment is that ALC 1035 is a known toxin with little study, specifically restricted to ‘research only’ and effectively has no prior [medical] use history.”
Another ingredient in the vaccine is a known toxic chemical: “Polyethylene Glycol is the active ingredient in antifreeze.” There have been countless cases where people have been fatally poisoned with this chemical. This comment by the Colonel is especially impressive:
“I cannot discern what form of alchemy Pfizer and the FDA have discovered that would make antifreeze into a healthful cure to the human body.”
Another important point is that “Moderna’s key ingredient, SM-102… is significantly more dangerous than the Pfizer ALC 3015.” Noted is that “This Moderna ingredient is deadly.”
“I have also reviewed scientific data and peer reviewed studies that discuss, analyze results and conclude that natural immunity is at least as good if not far superior to any Covid Vaccine available at this time.”
Exactly correct. Noted is that “natural immunity provides a 13-fold better protection against Covid 19 infections than any currently available Covid 19 Vaccine.” The Colonel points out that the Department of Defense disinterest in recognizing that “a military member’s prior [natural] immunity to Covid 19; even where it may be demonstrated with a recent antibody test.”
Here is a detailed telling by the Colonel of recent empirical evidence she is personally informed about regarding the real health impacts of COVID vaccines on military people. It is truly worth reading:
“I personally observed the most physically fit female Soldier I have seen in over 20 years in the Army, go from Colligate level athlete training for Ranger School, to being physically debilitated with cardiac problems, newly diagnosed pituitary brain tumor, thyroid dysfunction within weeks of getting vaccinated. Several military physicians have shared with me their firsthand experience with a significant increase in the number of young Soldiers with migraines, menstrual irregularities, cancer, suspected myocarditis and reporting cardiac symptoms after vaccination. Numerous Soldiers and DOD civilians have told me of how they were sick, bed-ridden, debilitated, and unable to work for days to weeks after vaccination. I have also recently reviewed three flight crew members’ medical records, all of which presented with both significant and aggressive systemic health issues. Today I received word of one fatality and two ICU cases on Fort Hood; the deceased was an Army pilot who could have been flying at the time. All three pulmonary embolism events happened within 48 hours of their vaccination. I cannot attribute this result to anything other than the Covid 19 vaccines as the source of these events. Each person was in top physical condition before the inoculation and each suffered the event within 2 days post vaccination. Correlation by itself does not equal causation; however, significant causal patterns do exist that raise correlation into a probable cause, and the burden to prove otherwise falls on the authorities such as the CDC, FDA, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. I find the illnesses, injuries and fatalities observed to be the proximate and causal effect of the Covid 19 vaccinations.”
If only more physicians would have the good sense to make that last medically smart comment.
This statement is also important:
“I can report of knowing over fifteen military physicians and healthcare providers who have shared experiences of having their safety concerns ignored and being ostracized for expressing or reporting safety concerns as they relate to COVID vaccinations.”
And here are several correct observations on harmful vaccine impacts:
“None of the ordered Emergency Use Covid 19 vaccines can or will provide better immunity than an infection-recovered person [with natural immunity]. All [current] vaccines in the age group and fitness level of my patients, are more risky, harmful and dangerous than having no vaccine at all, whether a person is Covid recovered or facing a Covid 19 infection. Direct evidence exists and suggests that all persons who have received a Covid 19 Vaccine are damaged in their cardiovascular system in an irreparable and irrevocable manner. Due to the Spike protein production that is engineered into the user’s genome, each such recipient of the Covid 19 Vaccines already has micro clots in their cardiovascular system that present a danger to their health and safety. That such micro clots over time will become bigger clots by the very nature of the shape and composition of the Spike proteins being produced and said proteins are found throughout the user’s body, including the brain.”
See this detailed account of vaccine induced blood problems.
As to the vaccine dangers for the military personnel the Colonel is responsible for:
“Flight crews present extraordinary risks to themselves and others given the equipment they operate, munitions carried thereon and areas of operation in close proximity to populated areas.”
And most importantly:
“I hereby recommend to the Secretary of Defense that all pilots, crew and flight personnel in the military service who required hospitalization from injection or received any Covid 19 vaccination be grounded similarly for further dispositive assessment.”
The Colonel, like some other brave and honest medical professionals, also stressed this: “We must evaluate and immediately implement alternatives to mRNA vaccines, to include Ivermectin (FDA approved 1996) …and Hydroxychloroquine (FDA approved 1955).”
To sum up, we have a highly educated and credentialed senior military officer stepping up to tell those above her and the public about the major risks of COVID vaccines for military personnel.
This physician strongly needs public support in the fight for pandemic truths. What she has concluded is just as important for the public as for military leadership and personnel. She has revealed the evil idiocy of the current public health establishment mindlessly pushing COVID vaccines for everyone.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn has a doctorate in engineering but has worked on health issues for decades. He is the author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemics. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors. He has lectured at many universities, including the Army War College.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On 22 September 2020, André Vltchek, quietly passed away – on a night-ride from the Black Sea in Turkey to Istanbul, accompanied by his wife, Rossie. He just fell asleep in the back seat of a chauffeur-driven car and didn’t wake up. His legacy is diverse, heavy in substance and revealing – revealing about the world, about the dark forces that command the world. He never really referred to them as “dark forces” because for him the wars he investigated, photographed, the conflicts he witnessed, the misery he experienced and filmed – was real. The “Dark Forces” came to the surface – no shade, no cover – but NO LIGHT.
André was always there where it was burning – or where there was great danger that soon it might burn – and the population blown apart.
We had some remarkable experiences together on the Greek island of Kos, following the refugee tracks. Refugees from Turkey – to Greece – to the European Union. Their sad fate in refugee camps with the most horrifying sanitary conditions – their patience – their HOPE – hope is what makes these refugees tick and breath. Not just those that come from the Middle East and Africa, to seek a better future mostly for their children in lush and wealthy Europe. Refugees all over the world live from hope. If we lose hope, life ends…
Similarly, we visited Puno in Peru, and from there to Rinconada – the world’s highest gold mine, a series of many small and large independent gold mines – controlled by a deadly mafia – some 5,100 – 5,400 m above sea level – indescribable conditions, of cold and misery – some 70,000 people are living there – in extreme destitution, but all on a voluntary basis, all in the hope to finally “hit the riches” – GOLD. They work for 29 days a month for free – and what they find on the 30th or 31st day – they may keep. That’s an old mining law that is still the rule for many of the Andean mines.
No heat, no running water – girls of all ages make a living as prostitutes to uncountable miners, who leave their families behind – well, in the HOPE to get rich. Huge fields of garbage – endless plastic waste – and ever-so-often in the midst of such mountains of waste – a cross protrudes – a grave.
These are some of the experiences André and I lived together. They created a bond – and throughout the years we knew each other from writing from exchanging ideas – – friendship in the virtual world, practiced in the real world – philosophizing during half a night in a cheap café in Athens – are unforgotten; their richness cannot be taken away – André, you are dearly missed.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Multiple sources in The HighWire’s network of Frontline Physicians, have reported an alarming uptick in aggressive cancers post-Covid vaccination.
Could there be a link?
Pathologist Ryan Cole, MD, discusses the available science and his lab’s findings.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Israelis Have Now Admitted the Impotence of the “vaccine” on TV news: see this.
If the “Covid Pandemic” is real, why have Denmark, Norway, and Sweden abolished all Covid restrictions and declared an end to the crisis? See this.
What explains the Vaccine Mandates?It is known that the vaccine does not protect—thus masks and booster shots—but it does kill and maim.Why are they determined to kill and maim us?
Three Thousand Doctors and Scientists want to know why they are being prevented from treating their patients with safe and effective medicines.
Over 3,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign Declaration Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’, see this.
The answer seems to be profit for Big Pharma and authoritarian control for government.
On ABC with George Stehanapoulos Pfizer CEO Albert Boula said henceforth normal life consists of annual booster shots. See this.
Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel agrees.He says there will be Covid booster shots forever. See this.
The gravy train is forever.
And so are the injuries and deaths from the vaccine.
45% of the FDA’s Annual Budget Comes from Big Pharma
The regulators are financially dependent on those they are supposed to regulate.Economist George Stigler pointed out decades ago that regulatory agencies are always captured by the industry they regulate. Regulators become facilitators and agents for the regulated.
Some New Yorkers Belatedly Wake Up and Protest Vaccination Mandate by Democrat Governor Who Has No Authority to Issue Mandates, see this.
Health Care Workers Who Have Witnessed Deaths and Disabilities from Vaccine Refuse The Death Shot
That should tell you something. Why do people take the Death Shot when health care workers have to be coerced into taking it? See this.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Comments Off on Why Are Americans Being Coerced to Submit to Injection with a Dangerous Substance that Is Known Not to Protect Against COVID but to Cause Death and Serious Health Injuries?
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The US Congress invited neoconservative regime-change strategists to discuss the next stage of hybrid warfare on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, which will likely involve creating an economic blockade, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of President Daniel Ortega, and borrowing tactics the Trump administration used in its coup attempt in Venezuela.
A House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on September 21 set out plans for the next phase of the United States’ hybrid warfare on Nicaragua, which aims to destabilize and ultimately overthrow the Central American nation’s leftist Sandinista government.
The event featured hardline neoconservative members of Congress, a senior State Department official, a prominent Nicaraguan regime-change activist, and the former president of Costa Rica.
The carefully staged spectacle made it clear that Washington will be expanding its brutal economic war on Nicaragua as the country’s general elections approach in November. This will take the form of more aggressive financial sanctions, through legislation called the RENACER Act. These sanctions could potentially expand into a de facto blockade modeled after the US embargo of Venezuela.
US officials stated explicitly that Washington will refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the November elections. The panelists also suggested that the Joe Biden administration may even refuse to recognize the legitimacy of President Daniel Ortega and the Nicaraguan government itself, and will pressure other countries in Latin America to cut diplomatic ties as well.
The hearing indicates that the Biden administration plans to repurpose many of the same tactics that the Donald Trump administration employed in the coup attempt it initiated against Venezuela in 2019, such as refusing to recognize the constitutional government of President Nicolás Maduro, appointing unelected US asset Juan Guaidó as supposed “interim president,” and broadening the sanctions initiated by the Barack Obama administration into a full-on economic blockade.
While the Biden administration is continuing the hard-line anti-Nicaragua posture taken by Trump, the State Department officials crafting these policies appear to know very little about the country.
As she spewed inflammatory rhetoric demonizing the Sandinista government as “authoritarian,” US Deputy Assistant Secretary Emily Mendrala comically referred to Nicaragua as an “island,” leading a member of Congress to correct her for apparently confusing the Central American nation with Haiti.
As she plotted ways to suffocate Nicaragua with sanctions and overthrow its Sandinista government, US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary @EMendrala called it an "island"…
Other participants made similarly absurd comments, demonstrating their ignorance of the reality on the ground in Latin America. Congressman Juan Vargas, for instance, farcically insisted that Fidel Castro, who died in 2016, is still alive and in power in Cuba, and “he’s been there a long time.”
While the event represented a laughable display of colonial arrogance, the consequences of Washington’s emerging agenda are likely to have serious consequences for Nicaragua and its people. Indeed, the State Department has emphasized that the Biden administration is working closely with the European Union, Canada, Costa Rica, and the Organization of American States (OAS) to destabilize the Sandinista government.
Together, they plan to expel Nicaragua from the OAS and isolate it diplomatically. They also hope to cut off the country’s trade with the United States and starve it economically.
The overblown rhetoric spouted by the panelists was complemented with fear-mongering about Russia’s alliance with Nicaragua, which they referred to with classic colonial framing as “the US doorstep.”
The hearing also highlighted a growing and increasingly influential right-wing Nicaraguan-American lobby, and its direct coordination with extremist Cuban-American elements in Florida.
US Congress pledges more aggressive sanctions on Nicaragua
This 2021, the Nicaraguan government arrested a series of right-wing opposition activists who orchestrated a violent coup attempt that devastated the country’s economy and society in 2018.
During the failed putsch, extremists waged a campaign of terror in Nicaragua, hunting down Sandinista activists, injuring, torturing, and killing hundreds. For months, criminal elements erected dozens of barricades known as tranques, in various parts of the country, while waging a low-intensity civil war against the Sandinista government.
President Daniel Ortega recognized that the US-backed coup-mongers were intentionally stoking violence, and wanted to invite a government crackdown that they could use to justify international intervention – a strategy that Hong Kong separatists openly advocated in a similarly failed US-backed destabilization operation.
So Ortega ordered police not to leave their stations, which led the foreign-funded coup-mongers to besiege Nicaraguan police stations and try to kill as many security forces as possible.
The powerful political and economic figures behind this bloody coup attempt finally faced legal consequences in 2021, and were arrested by the Nicaraguan government.
Yet the US government was furious at these detentions, because Washington had cultivated, trained, and funded these coup leaders, over years and with millions of dollars.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on September 21, titled “An International Response to Ortega’s Destruction of Democracy in Nicaragua,” was occasion for the US government to announce its plans to punish the Sandinista government for arresting its Nicaraguan assets.
The meeting was hosted by Representative Albio Sires, a right-wing Cuban-American Democrat who had joined Florida’s neoconservative former Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in writing the NICA Act, legislation that called for a de facto financial blockade of the Sandinista government.
Today, I held a @HouseForeign hearing on the corrupt Ortega regime’s actions to prevent competitive elections, eliminate the political opposition, and imprison anyone who stands in their way in #Nicaragua. See my opening statement:https://t.co/0n82YmCVVs
Sires and his neoconservative colleagues in the Congress are however not content with the economic warfare that Washington is already waging against Nicaragua. They want more.
In the September 21 hearing, he called for the US government and European Union to impose even more aggressive sanctions on Nicaragua and “begin preparing a number of severe diplomatic consequences,” including suspending the country from the Inter-American Democratic Charter and Organization of American States.
Sires is the co-sponsor of a follow-up to the NICA Act, known as the RENACER Act, which will expand the unilateral coercive measures targeting Nicaragua’s economy, while also ratcheting up US spy operations in the country.
In the Senate, the legislation has been spearheaded by Bob Menendez, another right-wing Cuban American Democrat who played a significant role in the US-backed coup in Bolivia in 2019, as well as Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican representative of far-right Cuban-Americans in Miami.
Menendez and Rubio have lobbied hard to expand US sanctions and increase aggressive tactics against Nicaragua, using the OAS to punish the country.
This June, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the RENACER act, although it has yet to be officially voted on.
The September 21 hearing made it clear that, despite protests by peace activists in Washington, the RENACER will soon be rammed through Congress with little opposition, thus escalating the US economic war on Nicaragua.
Now at US Capitol, a protest against the Renacer Act, which aims to destabilize Nicaragua and remove its elected govt through economic warfare.
The sanctions build on the US-backed 2018 insurrection attempt that saw right-wing gangs target Sandinistas with torture & murder. pic.twitter.com/yzbwD3IAQg
Joined Sires in the meeting was committee ranking member Mark Green, a Republican representing Tennessee who is co-sponsoring the RENACER Act.
While Green was unable to pronounce the names of the US-backed Nicaraguan coup leaders he described as “political prisoners,” he revealed that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee “regularly meet” with figures from the right-wing anti-Sandinista opposition to coordinate tactics.
Florida Republican Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar, a Cuban-American representative of the most fanatical far-right forces in Miami, also held forth during the hearing.
Salazar insisted that Washington must intervene much more aggressively in Latin America, claiming, “The United States is not present in this hemisphere! Period.”
Salazar held up photos of Felix Maradiaga, Arturo Cruz, and Juan Sebastián Chamorro, US government-backed Nicaraguan regime-change activists who played a crucial role leading the violent 2018 coup attempt.
Far-right Florida Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar holding up photos of US-funded coup leaders Felix Maradiaga and Arturo Cruz at a hearing on Nicaragua
Representatives Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, and Juan Vargas, a Democrat from California, joined the chorus of condemnation as well.
Vargas lamented that US regime-change operations targeting Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have repeatedly failed, complaining, “We do a whole lot of things to try to get rid of them, and we’re not very successful… We did a whole lot of damn things against all these guys, and they still seem to survive.”
In a comment that showed how little he actually knows about Latin America, Vargas then suggested that Fidel Castro, who died five years ago, is still alive and has “been there a long time. I mean we wanted to get rid of him for a long time. We’ve done lots of things to try to get rid of him, but we can’t get rid of him.”
US State Department vows escalation against Nicaragua
The deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Emily Mendrala, spoke proudly in the September 21 hearing about Washington’s political attacks on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.
“We continue to work with governments throughout the region, through the OAS and otherwise, to continue” putting pressure on Nicaragua, she said. “We are also working closely with the EU, Canada, and the UK to coordinate additional targeted measures.”
Mendrala “welcomed the bipartisanship” in the campaign against Nicaragua, and boasted that the US government has maintained support for right-wing opposition activists and media outlets, stating, “Through USAID, we continue to support Nicaraguan civil society, independent media, and human rights defenders.”
She also revealed that the US State Department “launched a social media campaign in August” against the Sandinista government.
Mendrala went on to take credit for a June statement in the OAS condemning Nicaragua. “Through US leadership, we were we were able to secure a very important coalition of 26 member states” to support the anti-Nicaragua OAS resolution, she said.
Quoting Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Mendrala claimed that Nicaragua’s “electoral process, including its eventual results, has lost all credibility,” making it clear that Washington will not recognize them.
Reading closely from written statements accusing Nicaragua of using “Russian-inspired laws to carry out repression,” Mendrala’s comments reflected the neoconservative tenor of the Biden State Department.
Rep. Mark Green interjected to chastise Mendrala for insufficiently zealous rhetoric.
“I would encourage you to say ‘the Ortega regime,’ because I’m not sure that it’s really legitimate,” the Republican said. “In fact, I think it’s not, I’m convinced it’s not a legitimate government.”
At one point, Mendrala even mistakenly referred to Nicaragua as an “island,” raising questions about her knowledge of the region’s most basic geographical contours.
“You called Nicaragua an island a minute ago,” Rep. Andy Levin corrected Mendrala. “I think you’re referring to the poorest country in the atmosphere, Haiti.”
US President Barack Obama with Costa Rica President Laura Chinchilla in 2013
Costa Rica’s former president calls for escalating hybrid warfare on Nicaragua
The inclusion of Costa Rica’s neoliberal former President Laura Chinchilla in the Congressional hearing reflected the Biden administration’s close coordination with Nicaragua’s US-backed neighbor to destabilize the Sandinista government.
Chinchilla echoed the extreme commentary of her US counterparts, citing “Ortega’s military strategy of increasing cooperation with Russia” to dub Nicaragua “a threat to regional security.”
The Costa Rican leader said Nicaragua must be expelled from the OAS, and called for a de facto economic blockade, “in order to stop immediately the external supply of financial oxygen to the Ortega regime.”
She also called for targeting the military, noting that “the Nicaraguan army [is] a key player in the endurance of the regime.” This was a not-so-subtle hint that Washington should curry favor with Nicaraguan generals to try to overthrow President Ortega.
Drawing on a US strategy used against Venezuela, Chinchilla then suggested that Washington should charge top Nicaraguan government officials with “money laundering and drug trafficking,” a patently absurd accusation.
She also suggested Washington should “deny legitimacy to the government” of Nicaragua, again echoing the US tactic of refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Venezuela’s constitutional government.
Today, Chinchilla is co-chair of the influential DC-based lobby group the Inter-American Dialogue. This February, she participated in a panel of neoliberal Central American officials at the corporate-backed think tank. It was joined by Biden’s special envoy to the region, Ricardo Zúñiga, and convened to cement the administration’s Central America policy.
The February event had hinted at tactics Washington and its regional clients would use to destabilize Nicaragua, including potentially recognizing US government-funded multimillionaire oligarch Cristiana Chamorro as a Juan Guaidó-style “interim president.” (The Sandinista government foiled those plans by arresting Chamorro on charges on money laundering.)
Rubio tuvo el honor de reunirse con las esposas de @Jschamorrog y Felix @Maradiaga, quienes permanecen arbitrariamente desaparecidos por el régimen de #Ortega. Nos unimos a la lucha de estas valientes mujeres y su pedido para que liberen a sus esposos de inmediato. #SOSNicaraguapic.twitter.com/dVWDevyebO
— Senator Rubio Press (@SenRubioPress) July 20, 2021
Elite right-wing Nicaraguan regime-change activist lobbies for more aggressive actions
Also starring in the Congressional hearing was right-wing Nicaraguan activist Berta Valle, the wife of coup leader Felix Maradiaga, a US-trained political operative who played a major role in the failed 2018 coup attempt.
Maradiaga, who grew up and was educated in the United States, has long been cultivated by the US government with the goal of destabilizing the Sandinista government.
Although his support base in his homeland is tiny, and he is despised by Sandinista supporters who hold him responsible for destabilizing the country over three years ago, Maradiaga has remained a top US government asset.
Incubated in the bowels of elite corporate-funded neoliberal institutions like the World Economic Forum, Maradiaga has led a series of NGOs and think tanks, such as the Institute for Strategic Studies and Public Policy (IEEPP), which use plentiful funding from CIA cutouts to wage hybrid warfare against the Nicaraguan government.
US-funded Nicaraguan coup leader Felix Maradiaga and his wife Berta Valle at the World Economic Forum
Like her husband, Valle was trained by the World Economic Forum, a notorious symbol of the global financial oligarchy. Valle is a proud part of the WEF’s Global Shapers Community, an international initiative to create neoliberal leaders who then push right-wing policies around the world that benefit the large corporations and billionaire plutocrats who fund the WEF.
A privileged member of Nicaragua’s miniscule class of wealthy elites, Valle made her name as a media personality at the country’s major right-wing outlets, such as Vos TV.
In her testimony in the Congressional hearing, Valle acknowledged that the Nicaraguan “government is alleging that Felix [Maradiaga] and others were part of a global conspiracy to use foreign resources, including from the US Agency for International Development, the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy, to harm the interests of the nation.”
That they did this is undeniable; it is an objective fact. Public records show that the organizations led by Maradiaga, such as IEEPP, have received huge sums of money from these CIA cutouts.
Here is top USAID/NED "pro-democracy" grantee Felix Maradiaga (white shirt) at Nicaragua's UPOLI with fellow coup planners including Pio Arellano, accused member of Viper criminal network waving a pistol in the air. pic.twitter.com/uqigHnYqTu
It is quite ironic that Valle mentioned these charges as if they were ludicrous, because the Nicaraguan justice system’s accusations against Maradiaga and other US-backed coup leaders were in fact confirmed by what the State Department official, Mendrala, said in the very same hearing.
Moreover, the State Department itself boasted in a public statement on September 14 that “the U.S. Government continues to support civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and independent media” in Nicaragua. Valle’s husband Maradiaga has been one of the top recipients of this foreign material support.
In her remarks, Valle also revealed that she has been coordinating with top members of the US government, and insisted on more US meddling in Nicaragua.
In July, Valle and other right-wing Nicaraguans traveled to Washington to meet with members of Congress, including Marco Rubio.
Today, Valle lives in the United States, and, with the active support of the US government, has been working to construct an anti-Sandinista Nicaraguan-American lobby to complement the power of the anti-revolution Cuban political machine in Miami. Already, her efforts and those of her patrons in Washington are bearing fruit, with an escalated economic war on her country of birth.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The following article from Before It’s News features a 41-minute interview with Dr. Bryan Ardis, CEO of Ardis Labs.
In this interview with Brannon Howse, Dr. Ardis reveals to us shocking information. As early as October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew that the COVID vaccines could lead to numerous side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, autoimmune disease, pregnancy and birth outcomes, thrombocytopenia, and vaccine enhanced disease. Despite knowing this, the FDA did not disclose this information to the public. Instead, the health agency only released information on minor side effects.
Some of the other points discussed in the interview include:
The media was underestimating the issue of blood clots following Johnson & Johnson vaccination. When the media was reporting only six cases, there were already hundreds recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Pfizer and Moderna had the same issues as Johnson & Johnson. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not raise the issue with Pfizer, even though it caused more blood clots compared to Johnson & Johnson, because it would risk raising concerns with Moderna which uses the same technology. In this way, Dr. Ardis said that the CDC sought to protect Moderna’s profit.
Note from COVID Call to Humanity: We took some time before publishing this video because we wanted to cross-check Dr. Ardis’ claims. And true enough, the contentious “slide 16” is still up on the FDA’s website. View the presentation being referred to by Dr. Ardis at https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download or read the transcript of that meeting here https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download. These two documents are also available for download below.
From these documents, especially “slide 16/17” it is clear that the FDA knew the extent of possible adverse effects that the COVID vaccines can cause, but chose to hide it from the public. While they say that these adverse events were “rare”, the public should have been told about these possible risks. Sanitizing this information, and telling people only about the “mild and more common” effects is a violation of informed consent.
There is only one reason why the FDA would choose to hide the “serious but less common” side effects: they didn’t want people to be afraid of the vaccines. They wanted as many people as possible to take it. But knowing that millions are already injured following vaccination, can we still say that hiding and denying this information was still in the best interest of the public? Why does it seem like it is our governments who are actually following the dictates of pharmaceutical companies? Why is our government using taxpayer’s money to advertise dangerous vaccines? Are they profiting from these efforts?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Protests have finally erupted in Israel as it has slowly dawned on people there that the goalposts for vaccine passports keep being shifted by the government.
It is now expected to be announced that at least FOUR vaccinations will be needed to be considered ‘fully vaccinated’ and able to engage in society.
Over the weekend marches took place in the streets of Tel Aviv against the so called ‘Green Pass’:
As we recently noted, despite over 61 per cent of its population being fully vaccinated and having implemented a vaccine passport system, the Israeli Health Ministry has expressed concern about the fact that a recent downtrend in COVID-19 infections is reversing, potentially surpassing any levels previously seen.
Israeli health minister Nitzan Horowitz was caught on a hot mic admitting that vaccine passports were primarily about coercing skeptical people to get the vaccine and not for medical reasons.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Back in July of this year we reported that Ohio-based Attorney Thomas Renz was filing a federal lawsuit in Alabama based on a “sworn declaration, under threat of perjury,” from an alleged whistleblower who claims to have inside knowledge of a cover-up of reported deaths filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Attorney Renz spoke at an event in Colorado this past weekend, and stated that more whistleblowers have now come forward, and that the death rate with those taking the COVID-19 vaccines is much higher than they originally thought.
Presenting data that he claims comes directly from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) database, there have been 48,465 deaths among CMS beneficiaries within 14 days of a 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
There are about 59.4 million Americans covered by Medicare, representing 18.1% of the population, so these are staggering numbers!
In his presentation, Renz states that they chose deaths within 14 days of vaccination, because the federal health agencies are no longer counting deaths within 14 days of a COVID-19 as a death among the “vaccinated,” but among “unvaccinated.”
Renz also presented very damning data on the drug Remdesivir, the new COVID-19 drug that was rushed to market while existing, safe and effective older drugs like Ivermectin are prohibited in hospital settings.
According to CMS data, almost 26% of people put on Remdesivir die. But it is a huge money maker for the government and Big Pharma.
By contrast, only 3.5% of people put on Ivermectin died, according to CMS data. But there are no longer any patents on Ivermectin, so it is not a money maker for the government and Big Pharma.
As attorney Renz states: “You’re being defrauded by your government!”
He also goes on to show what are allegedly documents from Pfizer that seem to suggest they knew that “shedding” occurred with their COVID-19 mRNA shots.
Here is the presentation. I have excerpted the key data he presented. This is from our Bitchute channel, and it will also be on our Rumble channel.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Former 2017 Davis Cup winner tennis player Jeremy Chardy recently announced he could no longer compete in professional tennis this year due to the crippling effects of the Pfizer COVID-19 shot. RT.com reports:
A tennis star has admitted he does not know when he will return to the sport and fears he may have to bring forward his retirement because of health problems he says he has suffered since taking the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
World number 73 Jeremy Chardy has become the latest tennis star to speak out against vaccines after experiencing what he describes as violent, near-paralyzing pains across his body since taking the jab, warning that there is “no hindsight” once people have received the treatment.
The 34-year-old says he his priority is to “take care of myself” after seeing two doctors and taking tests in a bid to deduce why he has found physical exertion so difficult since being vaccinated.
“Suddenly I cannot train, I cannot play,” the 2017 Davis Cup winner told AFP, explaining that he received the jab between this summer’s Olympics, when he was beaten by gold medalist Alex Zverev in the quarterfinals, and the US Open, when he lost in straight sets in the first round to Matteo Berrettini at the end of August.
“In my head, it’s difficult because I do not know how long it will last. For the moment, my season is stopped and I do not know when I will resume.
“It’s frustrating because I started the year really well, I was playing really well. And then I went to the Games, where I felt great too.
“And now my season is at a standstill and I do not know when I will resume. It is especially frustrating that I do not have ten years to play… suddenly, now I regret having had the vaccine, but I could not know [what the consequences would be].” (Source.)
Unlike other professional sports leagues that claim a high percentage of its players are now fully vaccinated with a COVID-19 shot, professional tennis has only about a 50% rate of those who have taken the shot, and some of the sport’s top players have said they do not intend to take it. RT.com reports:
The ATP men’s tour has said its players are “just above 50% vaccinated,” while the WTA women’s tour has said that “nearly 50%” of its stars had received the jab.
The world’s top four male players – Novak Djokovic, Daniil Medvedev, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev – have all spoken at some point about their reluctance to be vaccinated.
“Personally I’m opposed to vaccination, and I wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel,”said Djokovic earlier this year.
Russian star Medvedev, who beat Djokovic to become the first Russian man to win a major tournament since 2005 in New York on Sunday, has claimed he would not be getting jabbed “for medical reasons related to vaccines”.
Elsewhere, Greek world number three Tsitsipas caused a storm when he remarked that he didn’t “see any reason for someone of my age to do it – it hasn’t been tested enough, and it has side effects,” before adding “everyone can decide for themselves.”
German Olympic champion Zverev is also believed to be unvaccinated, and took a similar line in stressing that everyone “should act as they see fit” and that it’s “easy to be misunderstood, whatever you say” as the issue had become “too political” for his liking.
Coincidentally, three of that rebel quartet were US Open semi-finalists this month, which meant that all but one, Felix Auger-Aliassime, who is still yet to confirm his view, had either raised concerns about the jab or stated they refuse to take it.
Conversely, any tennis fan who wanted to watch the recent action in New York had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get into Flushing Meadows, after the United States Tennis Association mandated that spectators needed to provide proof of their Covid vaccination, while players weren’t required whatsoever.
[Woman’s] world number two Aryna Sabalenka said in March she doesn’t “really trust” vaccination as “they just make it, like really quick, and there wasn’t enough time to test it and to see what can happen.”
“I don’t want my family to take it. If I have to do it, then, of course, I have to do it because our life is a travel life,” she added.
The Belarusian star is joined by world number four Elina Svitolina, who said it “makes almost, like, no sense to do something that has been tested for such a short period of time.” (Source.)
If mandatory COVID-19 shots are required in the future for these players to compete, how many will risk their health and their lives to continue competing in their sport? I seriously doubt that the Globalists who own these professional sports leagues will allow unvaccinated players to continue competing much longer, because it will soon become obvious who are the better athletes, vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Unless there are special injections just for professional athletes that are basically placebos, it is hard to imagine these leagues lasting much longer.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
September 29th, 2021 by Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has issued a legal warning letter to the Ontario Government on behalf of four clients demanding the vaccine passport mandate be revoked immediately. The law requires Ontarians as young as 12 to provide proof of two doses of the Covid mRNA vaccination as of September 22, 2021, or be denied access to a wide range of businesses and organizations, including field trips to city facilities. The Justice Centre has notified the Province that it will file a legal action should Ontario fail to halt its unconstitutional discrimination against those who have not yet chosen to receive the experimental vaccines.
Since the vaccine passport has been announced, the Justice Centre has received hundreds of emails from Ontarians concerned about loss of employment, loss of ability to worship, and denial of access to restaurants, bars, gyms, sporting events, meeting and event spaces, and more, unless they show proof of their confidential medical status of vaccination.
Ontario’s Ministry of Health has stated that the government will only recognize two medical exemptions for vaccine passports: one for those who are allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine, with verification provided by an allergist, and another for those who experienced myocarditis or pericarditis after the first dose of a vaccine. There has been no provision for exemptions based on religion and creed, both protected grounds under the Charter and Human Rights Act.
Covid mRNA vaccination shots are new, with no long-term safety profile, and clinical trials will not be complete until 2023. As such, the Covid shots are experimental. Canadians have the right to informed consent, and the right to be fully informed about the side effects of the Covid vaccine, which has known side effects. The vaccine manufacturers have stated there is no data on the vaccine’s effects on fertility, or their safety for pregnant women or children. Emerging data unequivocally establishes that the Delta variant spreads freely in the fully vaccinated population, and there are emerging links to miscarriages in pregnant women and a demonstrated risk of heart inflammation in teenage males.
On their face, vaccine passports are an infringement of Canadians’ constitutionally protected rights to freedom of conscience, the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right to be equal before the law. Based on these guarantees, every Canadian has the right to bodily autonomy and to decide what medical procedure to accept or reject. The demand letter asserts that mandatory vaccination for Covid constitutes a significant, unwarranted and profound infringement on the rights of Canadians that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
“Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the right to liberty and security of the person. Ontarians should not be coerced or pressured by the government into submitting to a medical intervention to which they do not consent. Informed consent and the right to bodily autonomy are two principles that our laws have long protected. It will be a tragedy to see Ontarians, including children, being coerced to take the vaccine, or else be socially marginalized,” says Jorge Pineda, Staff Lawyer at the Justice Centre.
Individuals who have not been vaccinated for a variety of reasons, including religious belief, creed, and medical issues or concerns over serious side effects, will effectively be segregated and marginalized. Their participation in society will become limited to what is deemed “essential” by the government.
“The new mandate will have the effect of segregating individuals and especially young children from mainstream society. Mandating a system that denies Canadian’s access to certain services that are arbitrarily defined as nonessential by the government creates a slippery slope, and sets a dangerous descent into a medical dictatorship,” notes Justice Centre staff lawyer Henna Parmar.
“If we do not put an end to these measures, we will be putting unlimited power in the hands of the government to dictate what medical care we receive, what drugs we take, and what privileges they will allow us that should be fundamental rights,” adds Ms. Parmar.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
It’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and FEMA concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government or objecting to a COVID-19 vaccine could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
Indeed, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
The government also has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
It’s happened before.
As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.
One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain “order” in the homeland.
The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.
Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits its purposes. Pointing out that such blatantly illegal detentions could happen again—with the blessing of the courts—Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has long been part of the government’s budget and operations, falling under the jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA’s murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government’s disaster relief agencies into one large agency.
During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.
FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented.
But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with “mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.
Now if you’re going to have internment camps on American soil, someone has to build them.
Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be built, they rationalized the need for them in case of “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies such as “natural disasters.”
Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political dissidents.
So it’s no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation.
As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.
Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.
That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
These reports indicate that for the government, so-called extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is a target, which brings us back, full circle, to the question of whether the government will exercise the power it claims to possess to detain anyone perceived as a threat, i.e., anyone critical of the government.
The short answer is: yes.
The longer answer is more complicated.
Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it.
However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.
Frankly, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.
Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.
We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.
Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention. Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.
Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone—ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile—they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. A decade later, the cops largely have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal (mind you, in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the birds to growing exotic orchids).
Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the population today unconcerned about the government’s practice of spying on Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.
Indeed, it’s happening already, with police relying on surveillance software such as ShadowDragon to watch people’s social media and other website activity, whether or not they suspected of a crime, and potentially use it against them when the need arises.
It turns out that we are Soylent Green, being cannibalized by a government greedily looking to squeeze every last drop out of us.
The 1973 film Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.
Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, Soylent Green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”
Oh, how right he was.
Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us in prisons of our own making.
Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights when power, technology and militaristic governance converge, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted, and go where we wanted without those thoughts, words and movements being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
There is no question about it, the vaccines are dangerous. While tens of millions of Americans have been duped into getting the jabs, tens of millions more are skeptical, to say the least.
It would appear their skepticism is justified. Several doctors from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave startling testimony on Friday during a hearing on the COVID-19 vaccines. One of the highlights of this testimony was the allegation that the vaccines are actually killing more people than they are saving.
The doctors also said that the COVID “variants” are being driven by the vaccines, a conclusion those of us with working brains have already arrived at.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee ultimately voted 16-2 after 8 hours of testimony, shooting down Joe Biden’s hopes and dreams of imposing boosters on all Americans.
Among those that gave testimony during the hearing was Dr. Steve Kirsch, director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. What he had to say was explosive. Every American needs to listen up.
“I’m going to focus my remarks today on the elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about: that the vaccines kill more people than they save,” Kirsch said via teleconference.
“Today, we focus almost exclusively on COVID death saves and vaccine efficacy because we were led to believe that vaccines were perfectly safe. But this is simply not true.”
“For example, there are four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6-month trial report,” Kirsch continued. “That wasn’t bad luck. VAERS shows heart attacks happened 71x more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine.”
“In all 20 people died who got the drug, 14 died who got the placebo. Few people noticed that. If the net all-cause mortality from the vaccine is negative, vaccines, boosters, and mandates are all nonsensical.” (Screen shot here).
“Even if the vaccines had a 100% protection, it still means we killed two people to save one life,” he added.
Kirsch also explained that in nursing home death data shows about half the vaccinated died, while none of the unvaccinated died.
The information he covered is truly disturbing. He was not alone. Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist and biologist, said that based on the VAERS data the risks of the vaccines far outweighs the benefits to young people, especially children.
“There’s an over 1000% increase in the total number of adverse events for 2021 and we are not done with 2021,” Rose pointed out.
BOMBSHELL Info During Todays FDA Vax Meeting
Dr Rose States Based on The VAERS Data… The Risks Far Outweigh The Benefits Especially For Children
She also suggested that the COVID-19 variants are actually being driven by the vaccines.
“The emergence of both of these variants and their subsequent clustering arose in very close temporal proximity to the rollout of the COVID products in Israel,” she said.
“Israel is one of the most injected countries, and it appears from this data that this represents a clear failure of these products to provide protective immunity against emergent variants and to prevent transmission,” she noted.
Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an ER physician from New Orleans, brought up the fact that there is not enough large-scale clinical trial data to assure well-informed unvaccinated Americans that the vaccines do not pose a risk to their health.
An ER physician from New Orleans, Dr. Joseph Fraiman, noted not enough large-scale clinical trial data exists to assure well-informed unvaccinated Americans that their risk of experiencing vaccine side effects is lower than their chance of being hospitalized.
“Demand the booster trials are large enough to find a reduction in hospitalizations,” Fraiman told the FDA panel. “Without this data, we, the medical establishment cannot confidently call out anti-COVID vaccine activists who publicly claim that vaccines harm more than they save, especially in the young and healthy.”
“The fact we do not have the clinical evidence to say these activists are wrong should terrify us all,” he added.
It’s encouraging to see that these doctors actually presented real data and acted accordingly. No one should be receiving any “boosters” for COVID-19 especially until the shots can be proven to be safe and effective.
Despite the Biden regime’s plans to force boosters on all Americans who have already taken two COVID shots, the FDA did what was right and shot down the boosters, for now.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
As one would expect, the article did not receive much traction or exposure.
Needless to say, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the information contained in that piece. The article references an internal CDC slide presentation which summarizes preliminary data that the agency had in its possession but which it refuses to honestly share with the American public.
According to the Washington Post writers, this CDC document
“cites a combination of recently obtained, still-unpublished data from outbreak investigations and outside studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated.” [emphasis added]
In other words, as far as the transmission of the prevalent delta variant is concerned, it does not matter whether one is vaccinated or not. According to CDC analysis both groups appear to become infected and infect others at the same rate.
You can view and examine this internal CDC document for yourself as the Washington Post has made it available on its website. (Please see here.) You can also download the document as a PDF file from the newspaper’s website at this link.
Slide #17 of this report carries the following heading: “Delta variant vaccine breakthrough cases may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”
If you scroll further down, you will come to slide #22 titled Summary. The third bullet point reads: “Breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”
This clearly shows that CDC officials have been aware at least since July that the Delta variant – which is the prevalent strain in the United States – infects the vaccinated as much as it does unvaccinated.
And yet top US health experts still keep claiming that Covid is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” This claim has been echoed by politicians and mainstream media.
This has been duly noted by the Associated Press in its September report: “This summer’s coronavirus resurgence has been labelled a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” by government officials from President Joe Biden on down.”
Amazingly enough, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who serves as director of the very agency that produced the above referenced report, used the phrase “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” during a White House briefing in the third week of July even as the report was being completed.
A couple of weeks later, however, she made a stunning admission during a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer on his program called The Situation Room. Referring to the vaccines that are being currently administered to millions of people wordwide, Walensky said: “[w]hat they can’t do anymore is to prevent transmission.”
Can you grasp the implication of this: the vaccines no longer prevent transmission of the virus that causes Covid-19.
The question, then, becomes: If the vaccines do not prevent transmission, how can this be a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
Both cannot be true at the same time. In other words, it cannot be true that vaccines fail to prevent transmission and that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
The data clearly shows the truth of the former. Therefore, the claim of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is false.
This fact, however, does little to deter Dr Anthony Fauci and other high-level officials from spreading this lie in public. Earlier this month, Dr. Fauci, who is commonly described as the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, repeated the claim of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” in an interview with National Public Radio.
What these so-called experts are saying is simply not true and they must know it, because they have data at their disposal that shows otherwise.
How can this be a pandemic of the unvaccinated when the vaccinated are getting infected and pass their infection at the same – if not higher rates – than those who have not been vaccinated?
In the article titled “The Vaccines Do Not Stop Severe Covid or Death” we cite facts and data to show not only that the vaccinated are getting infected at high rates, but that they also comprise the majority of those who are falling seriously ill with and perishing of Covid in countries with robust vaccination drives.
If this were a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” it would be the unvaccinated who would be getting infected and dying in overwhelming numbers. This, however, is demonstrably not the case.
The allegation that this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is flagrant lie, which flies in the face of numbers and facts.
It is as regrettable as it is disturbing that this lie is being propagated by our country’s top health officials. These people must know the truth and yet they choose to disseminate falsehoods about the pandemic.
The propagators of this lie must be called out and held responsible for their acts of deliberate deception. It is people like Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci who are the super spreaders of misinformation regarding this pandemic.
In times such as this we need accurate information and guidance from our public health officials so that we can take effective steps to deal with this difficult situation. Propagation of gross falsehoods will only diminish public faith in our nation’s health agencies and sow more confusion which will give rise to misguided actions and prolongation of this crisis.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The US has no plans to ask permission from the Taliban if it decides to bomb Afghanistan in the future, the Pentagon said on Friday.
Since the withdrawal, the US has maintained that it has “over the horizon capabilities” to carry out airstrikes in Afghanistan. But even though the Taliban is leading the new Afghan government, the Pentagon has no plans to coordinate with them on potential airstrikes.
“We retain all necessary authorities to execute over-the-horizon counterterrorism operations, and we remain confident in these capabilities moving forward,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told Military Times.
“Without speaking to specific rules of engagement surrounding airstrikes, there is currently no requirement to clear airspace with the Taliban, and we do not expect that any future over the horizon counterterrorism strikes would hinge on such a clearance,” he said.
The last known US airstrike in Afghanistan took place on August 29th in Kabul, which killed 10 civilians, including seven children. The Pentagon initially claimed the strike targeted ISIS-K, but it was forced to admit that only civilians were killed in the bombing.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A delegation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a 15-member regional organization, visited the Guinean capital of Conakry on September 17 in a bid to have the leaders of a military coup return to the diplomatic fold mandated by the broader African Union (AU).
One demand of the regional body was to allow ousted President Alpha Conde to leave the country pending the outcome of a possible political transition.
Other issues included a timetable for the holding of multiparty elections and the appointment of an interim government. The coup leaders, who were members of the special forces, took control of the state on September 5 while participating in a United States military training exercise coordinated by the Pentagon-based Africa Command (AFRICOM).
What became apparent from the statements made by the ECOWAS delegation was that there was no agreement on any of the key issues raised in the discussions. Although the heads-of-state involved in mandating the mission to Conakry were seeking to reach some level of understanding with the Committee for National Rally and Development (CNRD), the name of the special forces grouping gave to themselves, the regional organization was rebuffed knowing that the capacity of ECOWAS was extremely limited in forcing compliance.
The day before the ECOWAS delegation travelled to Guinea, September 16, the regional organization held an extraordinary summit to discuss the situations in Conakry as well as neighboring Mali, where two military coups have been carried out since 2020. Similarly, as in Mali, ECOWAS and the AU have not been able to remove Col. Assimi Goita after he and other military officers seized power from an elected, albeit unpopular, political leader.
Even the interim administration endorsed by ECOWAS which included military and civilian officials, was later removed by Goita making himself the sole leader of the Malian state, a country which holds tremendous mineral resources despite the continuing poverty and underdevelopment of its people. The military forces of Guinea and Mali are heavily penetrated by AFRICOM and the French Operation Barkhane under the guise of “counter-terrorism” training and preparedness. Washington and Paris have publicly opposed the CNRD coup while not having much to say about its close relationships with the soldiers in Mali and Guinea.
An ECOWAS Communique was issued on September 16 reiterating its position on Guinea while announcing the imposition of sanctions against the CNRD. The text of the communique reads in part:
“The Authority reiterates its unreserved condemnation of the coup of 5 September 2021 and reaffirms its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of President Alpha Conde. It also reminds members of the National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (CNRD) that they are individually and collectively responsible for the physical safety of President Alpha Conde. The Authority was apprised of the current socio-political situation in the Republic of Guinea and of the apparent commitment of the National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (CNRD) to work towards a swift return to constitutional order. It also took note of the CNRD’s decision to hold consultations with all national and international stakeholders on the socio-political situation in the Republic of Guinea. The Authority expressed its concern about the resurgence of coups after the coups in Mali in 2020 and 2021.” (see this)
The actual sanctions against the CNRD includes the continued suspension of the coup makers from ECOWAS structures and deliberations. In addition, members of the CNRD are prohibited from traveling while their assets are frozen. Members of the junta, according to ECOWAS, are banned from running for public office in the event of national elections.
This communique concludes by emphasizing that:
“The Authority calls on the African Union, the United Nations and development partners to endorse the decisions and support the restoration of constitutional rule in the Republic of Guinea. Members of the Authority request the Chair of the Authority to visit the Republics of Guinea and Mali as soon as possible to convey in person the decision of the Authority. The Authority decides to remain actively seized on the matter.”
Mining, Industrialization and Economic Dependency
Guinea has maintained a tradition of mining and international trade since the pre-colonial kingdoms and states which developed long before the period known as the Middle Ages. The people of Guinea conducted explorations for gold and salt exchanging these commodities with other neighboring states and through routes which extended as far as North Africa and West Asia.
During the period of the Atlantic Slave Trade the area now known as Guinea was targeted by the European merchants seeking free labor. Colonialism emerged after centuries of slave capturing where Africans were exported to Latin America, the Caribbean and North America.
France colonized Guinea after years of resistance by the people, the most notable being Almamy Samori Toure who took up arms against the imperialists in the late 19th century. Under colonialism the mining industry was dominated by Paris where the resources and labor of the African people were super-exploited.
Of course, the mass liberation movement led by the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG) from the post-World War II period to independence in 1958, fostered an ideology of national development and socialist construction. The early phase of independence witnessed the restructuring of the ownership and profit distribution to provide more benefits to the Guinean people. Joint ventures between the Guinea government and multinational corporations were designed to channel the bulk of ownership and profits to the national entities set up by the PDG government.
However, there was much resistance to the African unification and socialist project of the first President Ahmed Sekou Toure. After his death in 1984 and the subsequent military coup, reactionary social forces within and outside the military moved closer in their alliances with France and the U.S.
As mentioned in a previous report, Guinea is a leading producer of bauxite and iron ore. These minerals have been extracted for decades inside the country without any significant benefit to the masses of the Guinean people. The industry has been marred in recent years by corruption involving bribes, nepotism and embezzlement.
Since the September 5 putsch, the mining industry has not ceased to operate. The CNRD leader, Lt. Col. Mamady Doumboya, after taking over the government, immediately encouraged the mining firms to continue with their business operations in the usual fashion.
Interestingly the CNRD implored the mining firms, many of which are based in the U.S., Britain, Australia and France, to build factories in Guinea and to prioritize the hiring of nationals from the West African country. Whether this was a serious call by the coup makers remains to be seen. What is clear is that historically mining firms operating in Africa have done almost nothing as it relates to fostering industrialization aimed at establishing import substitution sectors that could enhance economic development. (See this)
Class Character of the Military and Politicians
By observing the nature of the measures enacted so far by the CNRD there does not appear to be any significant break with the policies of the administration of former President Conde. The CNRD leader, Lt. Col. Doumbouya, was trained by France and the U.S. in various military colleges and through maneuvers such as Operation Flintlock.
Concurrently, Conde built his reputation as an opponent of the PDG government under the late President Toure. As a purported “human rights” campaigner and professor in France, Conde was groomed for the ascendancy to state power in Conakry. His administration was characterized by financial impropriety, political repression and a foreign policy orientation towards the western imperialist countries.
Conde does not stand alone in this regard among the ECOWAS states. The president of Ivory Coast, Alassane Ouattara, was installed by France with the endorsement of Washington in 2011, resulting in the kidnapping and attempted prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands of his predecessor President Laurent Gbagbo. Ouattara as well, altered the Ivorian constitution to extend his tenure in office.
Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe Eyadema has been leader of his country since 2005 after being appointed by his father prior to his death. All together the Gnassingbe family has maintained control of Togo for the last 54 years. In 2017, mass demonstrations demanding the resignation of Gnassingbe were met with extreme repression involving mass arrests, assassinations and the shutting down of the internet.
Therefore, the CNRD and the opposition parties within Guinea who have rallied to their support, believe that ECOWAS has no moral standing in making demands on the military regime. Pointing to the events which have transpired in Ivory Coast, Togo and other regional and African states in recent years, the Guinea military regime believes it can defy other heads-of-state in the current period.
The only way out of this cycle of dependency, societal underdevelopment and political instability is the resurgence of a people’s revolutionary movement which can organize the masses of workers, farmers and youth inside of Guinea and throughout the entire ECOWAS region. Profits from the mining of bauxite, iron ore, gold, diamonds and other natural resources could then be utilized for the national development of Guinea setting an example for other regional states in the quest for genuine independence and sovereignty.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: ECOWAS delegation to Guinea on Sept. 17, 2021 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The Western Balkans are heating up, as tensions between Kosovo and Serbia are escalating rapidly in recent days.
It all began with Pristina forcing cars with Serbian registration plates to change them to temporary ones when entering Kosovo. It was allegedly a “reciprocal measure”, to what remains unclear.
The registration plate decision led to hundreds of ethnic Serbs staging daily protests against the authority of the Albanian-led Kosovo government. In the areas bordering Serbia, there have reportedly been attempts to entirely reject the government’s rule.
Policemen were dispatched to the area to establish security.
Regardless of all measures, hundreds of Serbs in Kosovo have been protesting and blocking traffic with trucks on the roads leading to two border crossings.
In response to Kosovo’s registration plate ruling and the police deployment, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic ordered a heightened regime for Belgrade’s army and police units along the border.
Serbian fighter jets could be seen flying again over the border region after several sorties.
The situation is quite sensitive, as there are a plethora of interests that collide in both Serbia and Kosovo. It is yet another impromptu standoff between Russia and the collective West.
The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell urged Serbia and Kosovo to reduce tensions. That was all of it, since the bloc has other things to worry about as winter nears.
The first one to contact the Serbian President was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who also spoke to the Kosovar Prime Minister.
Vucic has revealed himself as a rather pro-Western tool, and has even claimed that in the case of an escalation he would call for KFOR and NATO to protect the ethnic Serbs. These forces are primarily American, Canadian and Polish, the main parties responsible for most of the tragic issues in the region.
This claim is mixed with a significant anti-Russian hysteria campaign in the Serbian information sphere, which become even more intense after the Russian military attaché visited the border crossing. There are evident attempts at turning the issue from a standoff between Serbian and Kosovar authorities into an incident between “Russia against Kosovo and Serbia”.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the escalation takes place just days before Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visits Moscow to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Syria’s Idlib.
Ankara has a strong influence over the Albanian-led government, and the tensions may be a way for Erdogan to demonstrate that Moscow may have Turkish-orchestrated problems even away from the Middle East.
Still, this does provide Russia with an opportunity to swoop in and prove itself as a reliable ally of the Serbians, after the EU, NATO and others show that they are unwilling to provide tangible support. After all, it is hard to imagine that NATO member country Albania would move against the Albanian-led government in Kosovo and in Serbia’s favor.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
These are the events happening all over the World, children and adolescents are dying. Either the media does not report on vaccine related deaths or it states with authority that the deaths are attributable to Covid. Crimes agains humanity, crimes against our children.
This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.
There will be no Covid passport.In Sweden Covid restrictions are scheduled to end this Wednesday September 29. The Danish government decided two weeks ago to end Covid restrictions.
There are major questions over the validity of the testing procedures being used to determine the presence in the UK population of the putative ‘Covid19 virus’ specifically relating to the throat swab (RT-PCR test) and evidence of previous infection using antibody tests.
It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy. And there is ample evidence that the decision to close down a national economy (resulting in poverty and unemployment) will inevitably have an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality.
A shift in the world’s power base, alliances and economic strength, will undoubtedly happen within the coming years. In fact, it’s already ongoing. But not necessarily according to Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) “The Great Reset”.
Leading up to the 6th Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CLACS, or CELAC for the Spanish-language acronym), hosted by Mexico on September 18 in its capital, with 31 states participating, there were great expectations for a dramatic statement from CLACS as to whether it would de facto replace the Washington-based OAS (Organization of American States).
State-sponsored 9/11 was a game-changer, the mother of all false flags until way-surpassed by deceptively giving garden variety flu a scary new name. What followed was unjustifiably justified by an invented SARS-CoV-2 virus that was never isolated in lab analysis and doesn’t exist.
Excess deaths data tell us an incredible tale. Sweden has been largely open and free from any restrictions for 15 months and counting, and Stockholm has seen virtually *zero* excess deaths from the “deadly pandemic.”
The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Bulk of COVID-19 per capita deaths occur in elderly with high co-morbidities.
Per capita COVID-19 deaths are negligible in children.
Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term.
Clinical trials did not address long-term effects most relevant to children.
High post-inoculation deaths reported in VAERS (very short-term).
Abstract
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
There’s something about human nature that causes people in power to want to “do something” when faced with an unknown problem. Yet sometimes, doing nothing is better than “doing something.” When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more evidence is emerging that the laissez-faire approach to the issue — at least on a governmental/”public health” level — was the solution all along. The path chosen by Sweden, Belarus and a select few nations — which put the power in the hands of individuals to make their own health choices, instead of imposing draconian government edicts — appears to have won the day. With almost two years of data now in our hands, it sure seems that the ruling class has a lot to answer for.
Since the first COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, in early 2020, the supposed expert class has told us that their forcible “mitigation and suppression” tools, such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing via government edicts, were absolutely necessary to prevent incredible potential damage that would have been caused by the apparent unchecked circulation of this virus. The “experts” overwhelmingly endorsed these Chinese Communist Party-endorsed “health” measures, declaring them scientific overnight, despite many of these tools never being utilized in the event of a global pandemic. Far from looking back to reassess the premise of their grand plans, these leaders continued to plow forward with further and further restrictions on our liberties. They then pivoted to using these instruments of power in combination with compulsory therapy regimes, all under the guise of keeping us simple-minded plebs safe from the virus. Sure, all of our unalienable rights were seemingly stripped away without due process, but governments assured us that these supposedly scientifically proven measures would shield us from COVID-19. At the very least, we were told that these restrictions would be worth it because they are “keeping us safe.”
Now, almost two years have passed, and there is simply no evidence to date that these measures helped with our virus problem. In fact, given the excess death data of laissez-faire Sweden, you can now make the case that these “public health” solutions actually caused far more health problems than COVID-19 ever could by itself.
Excess deaths data tell us an incredible tale. Sweden has been largely open and free from any restrictions for 15 months and counting, and Stockholm has seen virtually *zero* excess deaths from the “deadly pandemic.”
As I told you almost 400 days ago ⬇️
Sweden is overcounting Covid death. Covid death: ~15k Excess death: ~3.5k …80% of european countries have more excess death (per mio)!
Basically no excess death in Sweden for 15 month now (3.5k excess June 2020 as well).
As of 9/25/2021, non-intervention countries Sweden and Belarus rank 43rd and 111th respectfully among nations in terms of COVID deaths per/100k population.
Again, this begs the question:
If Sweden and Belarus were able to outperform other nations by simply doing nothing, what exactly have all of these “public health expert” interventions accomplished?
The “experts” told us that their approach would certainly result in human catastrophe, with bodies lining every city block. Yet the opposite is true. Life has moved on from COVID in these nations, where the illness is being treated comparable to seasonal influenza.
Moreover, there appears to be declining confidence that the latest promised “cure” to the disease (mRNA injections) are acting as a cure in any way, shape, or form.
The Wall Street Journal: Israel, 80% Vaccinated, Suffers Another Covid-19 Surge.https://t.co/jDEoDJeHc4
* This is just a shocking observation, Not a correlation or a conclusion against vax.
Most countries with high % EXCESS DEATH in August Israel, Qatar, Iceland, Spain: 21-25% Finland, Chile, US, UK: 14-16% Are highest vax. rates: 70-90% of adults Source:https://t.co/I4lEF2hYuYpic.twitter.com/kYNQOaLxfV
In Sweden, children remained in school. Businesses remained open. People were allowed to live their lives as they saw fit. And yet, Sweden and others demonstrated excess mortality that was lower than average when compared to nations that had the most restrictions.
In America, due to government edicts, our overall health declined, we got sicker, we saw an unprecedented obesity increase, among other issues caused by “public health” interventions. Far from solving the virus issue at hand, it’s become clear that all of these mandates and restrictions just added additional problems on top of the issue of an endemic seasonal virus.
Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, especially when you’re trying to fight a war against an endemic, submicroscopic infectious particle.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.
Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
The unspoken truth is that the virus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the covid crisis.
The fear campaign prevails. And people are now led to believe that Big Pharma’s mRNA “vaccine” is the “solution”. And that “normality” will be restored once the entire population of the planet has been vaccinated.
In response to last week’s donation and membership campaign, we can now say that Global Research is no longer “in Troubled Waters”.
Our readers have thrown us a lifeline in the form of a donation or a membership subscription, allowing us to patch up and sail onwards.
Our readership has expanded. Despite media censorship, we are now navigating at more than 100 thousand page views a day.
We are living in the midst of a Worldwide crisis which threatens fundamental human rights and freedom of expression.
We have published extensively on these issues. We have also expanded our video productions.
At this juncture, we must ensure that truth in media and freedom of expression prevail.
To reach out to a broad readership Worldwide, the referral of Global Research articles is fundamental, through sharing, forwarding, posting on blog sites as well as crossposting.
If you are in a position to donate 5-10 minutes of your day, we would be forever grateful. Here are some ways you could help:
Establish an email list of some fifty friends and family and forward the daily Global Research Newsletter and/or your favourite Global Research articles to this list on a daily basis.
Use the various instruments of online posting and social media creatively to “spread the word”. Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our articles’ pages for starters. Help keep our articles circulating.
Post one or more Global Research articles on your blogs as well as internet discussion groups to build a dialogue around our coverage. Submit Global Research articles on independent media and partner websites.
Do you have friends who would benefit from our articles? Consider encouraging them to sign up for our newsletter (click here for sign-up form).
Are you part of a community group or organized webinar discussion group? Submit a topic we have covered or a specific article from our website for discussion at your next webinar meeting.
To support Global Research as part of our September- October donation campaign, please consider making a donation, or becoming a member,
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Many people have asked if I attend DAVOS meetings. The answer is NO! I considered taking a booth there to display Socrates, but decided against it because the overall theme of Davos was the very opposite of my personal views and the forecast of Socrates which says they will crash and burn.
The World Economic Forum is really a major effort to control the world.
Besides the Davos forums, and Schwab’s board members are strategically picked to infiltrate governments and agencies which has allowed the WEF to control the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, and the EU itself as well as the European Central Bank.
Schwab has placed people in key positions that all share his view of the world and how it MUST be changed. Mark Carney is the United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and on Schwab’s board. Carney served as the Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 until 2013 and the Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 and was promoted to those posts by Schwab.
Look at the slogan –
COMMITTED TO IMPROVING THE STATE OF THE WORLD
Schwab has strategically been seeking to build his global influence and even trains a broad range of C-level executives into his future dreams in an academic program tailored for his World Economic Forum Leadership Team.
Schwab is then indoctrinating people he identifies as future world leaders. The Young Global Leaders® Community is taking whom he considers exceptional people with “the vision, courage, and influence to drive positive change in the world”.
Yes, courage to impose the Great Reset.
Schwab is indoctrinating the world to adopt his vision of how the world should function ending democracy.
As it happens, the phrase “know thy enemy” comes from the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu. The full quote goes like this:
“Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.“
This is a “conspiracy theory”. They call it that so you do not look closely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A shift in the world’s power base, alliances and economic strength, will undoubtedly happen within the coming years. In fact, it’s already ongoing. But not necessarily according to Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) “The Great Reset”.
“Not necessarily”, because We, The People, can stop it. Plus, there are nations and their allies, who do not agree and won’t accept the enslavement of much of the world through the self-anointed powers of an ultra-rich elite.
The Saker, in his blog“Big, huge changes, in the near future (a tentative list)” (26 September 2021) has covered most of the geopolitical transformations that are likely taking place in the foreseeable future.
Consider the SCO – the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – has just integrated Iran as new member. This – in the west – little-talked-about organization, association of eastern countries, created by China and Russia on 15 June 2001, started out with 7 Central and East-Asian members, Republic of Kazakhstan, the People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Since then India, Pakistan have joined and now Iran. Associated members are Malaysia and Mongolia. Which makes the SCO one of the most powerful, possibly THE most powerful, socioeconomic and defense strategy organizations in the world – with nearly half the world’s population and about one third of the world’s GDP.
One could undoubtedly ask, what does India have to do in this club?
India is swinging from West to East to West, where ever the crumbs of fortune seem to be larger. Recent photographs of India’s PM Narendra Modi with President Biden, together smiling to the media – speaks for itself.
Well, for sure, there are macro-strategic reasons for keeping Modi’s India in the SCO-Association. The day will come when India will be India again – not just expressed by the will of the people, but also by her leaders.
*
As well illustrated in The Saker’s essay, the west is destined to break apart and eventually collapse. It’s reminiscent of the picture of a falling airplane, where the passengers are arguing and thrashing out on each other, while the rapidly descending plane is breaking apart – and soon hitting the ground. And probably goes up in smoke. It’s most likely not going to be that dramatic – but perhaps close.
Indeed, Europe cannot decide whether they belong to the western Anglo-American block that has also captured Australia and New Zealand – or to the much more stable, and much more peaceful and congenial mega-continent – Eurasia. Just a couple of figures to dwell about: 55,000,000 km2 (21,000,000 sq mi), and 5.4 billion population, as of October 2019 – about two thirds of the world population.
It’s actually a no-brainer. We will soon see whether Europe, the European Union, eventually will fall apart for not knowing where to belong, or make a last-minute right decision. It’s a pity, that the “system” insinuating ruling the World Order, does not see, or not want to see, that they are betting on a paper tiger – like NATO – to come to its rescue.
AUKUS
Let’s look at AUKUS. It stands for Australia, UK and US and aims at modernizing the primary beneficiary – Australia – over the coming decades to take up security challenges in the Indo-Pacific [clear speak: Take up offensive positions against China and Russia].
The plan is to give access to cutting edge military technology to Australia by its two partners, including futuristic capabilities like artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. This refers to the recent deal of US/UK built nuclear submarines, canceling the submarine contract Australia had with France. See this.
This, AUKUS deal for unprepared France, annihilated a US$ 66 billion equivalent Australian contract with French majority state-owned Naval Group to provide 12 conventional diesel-electric submarines for Australia.
And imagine, this is just one of the first “deals” of the rather new AUKUS alliance. What may follow, are more such self-centered, immediate-profit-oriented deals that help further breaking apart the once-upon-a-time so powerful western alliance.
The new AUKUS deal will provide Australia with nuclear powered submarines. But the agreement is so new, neither cost nor time frame are so far public knowledge.
France withdrew its ambassadors to the United States and Australia after U.S. President Joe Biden revealed last week a new tripartite alliance including Australia and Britain that would allow Australia to amass a fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines.
Russia Today (RT) sums it up:
It is no surprise, then, that the newly forged Atlantic-Pacific triple alliance between the US, Great Britain, and Australia, known as AUKUS, has caught the eye of Russian leaders and defense chiefs. Announced on 15 September, the pact was presented as targeting China. However, it’s clear its geopolitical implications won’t be felt in Beijing alone.
Initially cautious, Moscow’s response has quickly become more critical. Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council, has denounced AUKUS as the “prototype of an Asian NATO,” set to expand, and directed against both China and Russia.
The essence of AUKUS is not complicated. While it covers various areas, such as cyber and artificial intelligence, its core is the transfer of technology from the USA to Australia. And not just any technology, but that of nuclear-powered submarines, which, until now, have been in the possession of only six states: China, France, Great Britain, Russia, the USA, and – in a complicated manner dependent on Russia – India. And of course, never to be mentioned: Israel.
In conclusion – Moscow may, accordingly, expand its own nuclear submarine fleet in the Pacific. In such a world, the already existing strategic partnership between China and Russia would only get stronger.
In parallel to this AUKUS treason on France, Biden is hosting a Quad summit (Quad Alliance = Quadrilateral Security Dialogue is a strategic dialogue between the United States, India, Japan and Australia). While the topic is not official news yet, it’s not difficult to guess that the subject is how to “contain” – speak “aggress” Russia and China. And again, strangely, prominent SCO member India plays along.
*
There is the economic impact such a deal may have, not only in figures of hard money, but also as a precedent. No rules are respected. This is the “free market” of the New Brave World, under which not even traditional allies are respected and secure.
It is difficult to predict how France under Macron will act in response. Macron is certainly no De Gaulle. President Macron – or his aids, have insinuated that in response to the abrogation of the Aussie-French nuclear submarine deal, France may exit NATO. We can easily speculate, that’s what De Gaulle would have done. That would be something to be proud of for France and, in the long run for Europe too. But it is unlikely to happen. Macron is “guided” by darker forces, emanating from the financial establishment.
This socioeconomic and political break-up of the so-called western alliance, will certainly hurt a lot of people, but the world, Mother Earth, will survive, and most of those who have not betrayed their beliefs may too.
It is unfathomable what the onset of covid has destroyed in terms of socioeconomic wealth and simply, wellbeing. People in the Global South, about whom hardly any wester politician speaks, are dying, from hunger, despair, disease – and merely from desperation. According to the World Food Program, close to a billion people are already suffering from famine or are at the verge of seriously suffering from food scarcity.
The imminent break-up of the west will accelerate the shift of economic and political power to the east.
Europe has not much time to decide whether they belong to the Future – the east – or to the defunct and decaying past, the west (self-destruction by egocentricity and self-imposed empire). It requires both, the (western) people to wake up and take back their governments, abducted by the dark invisible forces; and the human strength to survive on a level of no-revenge, non-aggression, despite enormous sacrifices that may have to be made to salvage our civilization.
Yes, it’s possible. We can do it.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also is a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Oggi a La Spezia il ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini inaugura SeaFuture 2021 (v. l’ articolo di Giorgio Beretta), la mostra militare-navale sponsorizzata dalle principali industrie belliche. In testa Fincantieri («sponsor strategico»), Leonardo («sponsor di platino») e Mbda (joint venture europea in cui Leonardo ha il 25%) che partecipa come «sponsor d’oro».
Il «Futuro» è già stato tracciato nella «Direttiva per la politica industriale della Difesa», emanata da Guerini il 29 luglio: l’Italia deve «disporre di uno Strumento militare in grado di esprimere le capacità militari evolute di cui il Paese necessita per tutelare i propri interessi nazionali», che assicuri «la sua appartenenza alla cerchia dei Paesi tecnologicamente ed economicamente avanzati».
La Direttiva, ribaltando l’Articolo 11 e altri principi costituzionali col silenzio-assenso del Parlamento, stabilisce che l’Italia deve sempre più armarsi. Allo stesso tempo stabilisce che l’Italia deve mantenere e rafforzare «la relazione strategica con gli Stati Uniti, per assicurare il coinvolgimento nell’innovazione tecnologica che trova negli Usa uno dei principali incubatori, per favorire l’accesso delle aziende italiane nel mercato americano e per posizionare meglio l’Italia nel contesto europeo».
La linea tracciata dalla Direttiva è già da tempo operativa.
Basti ricordare: l’imbarco sulla portaerei Cavour, la nave ammiraglia della Marina, dei caccia Usa F-35B a decollo corto e atterraggio verticale, al cui impiego la nave è stata certificata a Norfolk in Virginia; la decisione di armare i sottomarini e le fregate italiane di missili Cruise con raggio di almeno 1.000 km; la decisione di armare i droni Reaper, che l’Italia ha acquistato dagli Usa.
Questi e altri armamenti, di cui vengono dotate le nostre forze armate, non servono alla difesa ma all’attacco. La Cavour armata degli F-35B diventa una base militare avanzata che, dispiegata in lontani teatri bellici, può attaccare e invadere un paese; i sottomarini e le fregate possono colpire da grande distanza un paese con missili da crociera che, volando a bassissima quota sul mare e lungo il contorno del terreno, sfuggono alle difese anti-aeree; i droni Reaper, teleguidati da migliaia di km di distanza, possono colpire i «bersagli» umani con missili Fuoco infernale e bombe a guida laser o satellitare. L’Italia si sta così armando per partecipare ad altre guerre sotto comando Usa/Nato.
La «relazione strategica con gli Stati Uniti», stabilita dalla Direttiva, si sta rafforzando ogni giorno di più. Il gruppo Fincantieri, controllato per il 70% dal Ministero dell’economia, ha negli Usa tre cantieri, in cui sta costruendo dieci fregate multiruolo per la US Navy e quattro analoghe navi da guerra per l’Arabia Saudita.
La Leonardo – la maggiore industria militare italiana, che ricava dagli armamenti oltre il 70% del suo fatturato – fornisce negli Usa prodotti e servizi alle forze armate e alle agenzie d’intelligence, e in Italia gestisce l’impianto di Cameri dei caccia F-35 della Lockheed Martin. Il 30% dell’azionariato del gruppo Leonardo appartiene al Ministero dello Sviluppo economico.
Per questo alla mostra militare di La Spezia, a fianco del ministro Guerini del Pd partecipa il ministro Giorgetti della Lega. Definito «esperto di conti», pensa lui a gestire i 30 miliardi di euro già stanziati dal Ministero dello Sviluppo economico a fini militari e gli altri 25 richiesti dal Recovery Fund.
I 26 miliardi di euro spesi annualmente dal ministero della Difesa non bastano più. Occorre passare ad almeno 36 miliardi annui, come richiesto dalla Nato e ribadito dagli Usa. Tanto per fare due conti, la portaerei Cavour è costata 1,3 miliardi di euro, i 15 F-35B per la Marina costano 1,7 miliardi, e a questi si aggiungono altri 15 F-35B e 60 F-35A a capacità nucleare per l’Aeronautica.
Ci sono poi le spese operative: un giorno di navigazione della Cavour costa oltre 200 mila euro e un’ora di volo di un F-35 oltre 40 mila euro. Sempre con denaro pubblico sottratto alle specie sociali, investito in armi e guerre per «tutelare i nostri interessi nazionali e appartenere alla cerchia dei Paesi economicamente avanzati».
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Covid-19 came to Saskatchewan (pop 1,179,906) on March 12, 2020.
This highly infectious, deadly disease devastated 0.05% of the population; miraculously sparing 99.95%.
Officially, Covid killed 658 Saskatchewanians. Persons aged 80-and-over account for 298 (45%) of fatalities. 60-and-over account for 85%.
304,000 Saskatchewanians are aged 19-and-under. Covid allegedly killed 3 of them. Annually, Covid culls 0.00049% of Saskatchewan youth. Accidental drownings kill more kids than Covid.
In the year ending December 31, 2021, a total of 10,107 Saskatchewanians died (up slightly from 2019). Typically, 0.8% of Saskatchewanians die annually. Year-to-year fluctuations render Covid’s signal undecipherable.
Tens of thousands of Saskatchewanians suffer chronic respiratory and/or immune malfunction. Chest infections finish-off many of these people. Most Covid fatalities rested on death’s brink, pre-Covid. Still, Covid killed only a tiny percentage, even of this frail cohort.
Covid cases to date: 63,875
Active cases: 4,715
Resolved cases (dead or recovered): 59,160
Covid’s official survival rate: 98.9%
Testing programs undercount cases. 15% of Saskatchewanians have had Covid
Covid’s real survival rate: 99+%
Of 4,715 active cases, 273 are hospitalised. 94% of Covid cases self-medicate and self-police their quarantine. They’re clearly not in distress. Furthermore, letting 4,442 infected patients roam free means authorities don’t believe their own hype about Covid’s contagiousness and lethality.
Hospitalization stats reflect shifting stratagems. Deciding whether a Covid case goes home, or to hospital, is exclusively the privilege of conspiring physicians. Zero transparency. Zero oversight.
Daily testing rates dictate daily case counts. Early September saw many days with under 2,000 tests. Mid-September, daily tests suddenly jacked to 4,000+. Voila! …Fourth Wave.
1,532,204 vaccinations have been administered. Daily jab counts, which range from 200 to 18,000, currently hover in the low thousands.
Pre-Fourth Wave, as mere persuasion ran its course, daily jabs dipped to mere hundreds.
986,000 Saskatchewanians are aged 13-and-over[WK1] . 723,081 are doubly vaccinated. 31,067 are triply vaxxed. 531 have had Booster-4. (Most of the 50,000 single-dosers are awaiting their second jab.)
180,000 Saskatchewanians reject the injection.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Sources
Saskatchewan Population Quarterly Review, First Quarter, 2021.
Saskatchewan Population Report for Calendar Year January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021
Government of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Health Authority, Covid Dashboard
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Leading up to the 6th Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CLACS, or CELAC for the Spanish-language acronym), hosted by Mexico on September 18 in its capital, with 31 states participating, there were great expectations for a dramatic statement from CLACS as to whether it would de facto replace the Washington-based OAS (Organization of American States). This prospect came about because of remarks by political leaders leading up to the summit. Fortunately, however, this dramatic shift did not take place.
This wise decision was based on the foresight and political acumen that many Latin American leaders have developed, not only over the last decades since the Cuban and Bolivarian Revolutions, but even as far back as two centuries ago, when Bolívar initiated the struggle to liberate and integrate the entire region from Spanish colonialism.
President Nicolás Maduro set the tone by evoking, among other points, the road to the construction of CLACS and the role of Chávez and Venezuela based on the legacy of Bolívar. This merited a tweet that Chávez was effectively present at the summit: “Watching TeleSur, inspired, Chávez is in the Summit.”
Before presenting his view on CLACS process to further solidify integration, with the good fortune that the alphabetical order placed Venezuela as the last head of state to speak, Maduro challenged two presidents who preceded him and who had asserted false accusations of Venezuela being undemocratic and of the OAS being indispensable and thus not in contradiction with CLACS. On the latter issue of OAS-CLACS, the rebuttal by the Venezuelan head of state, whose very presence was a stunning defeat of the North – comprised of the US and Canada and their few Latin American allies that have tried to overthrow him and ostracize him in the international community – he emphatically stated that there is indeed a contradiction between the OAS and CLACS, an old one dating moreover from the 19th century as Monroism versus Bolivarianism.
Maduro proposed, among other suggestions, “the constitution of a CLACS General Secretariat with sufficient power to take the reins of the construction of what is the dream of Latin American and Caribbean integration,” as part of a “new institutionalization” of CLACS.
In effect, the conditions were not yet ripe on September 18 for a de facto replacement of the OAS by CLACS. Had this step been taken prematurely, it would have backfired. First, it was clear from the statements by many representatives of anti-OAS governments that thepandemic is a major preoccupation; thus, a premature debate and the inevitable contradictions arising from the tectonic switch of the OAS to CLACS would detract from the fight against the pandemic.
Second, another immediate concern as expressed in Mexico, especially by the small island nations in the Caribbean, is climate change, which is a direct challenge to the very existence of these vulnerable peoples. In this context, a current priority may be Latin American and Caribbean countries’ policy toward the next international climate change conference (COPS26), which takes place October 31 to November 12, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland.
Third, further political shifts to the left in the region in the coming year would greatly assist the composition of CLACS in its goal to replace the OAS. The most obvious scenario is the Brazilian presidential elections in October 2022. Brazil withdrew from CLACS under the extreme right-wing Bolsonaro government and therefore was not present in Mexico. Luis da Silva, one of the precursors of CLACS, is ahead in the polls for the 2022 elections. Moreover, Colombia (which boycotted the Mexico Summit to protest the Maduro government and lick the boots of Washington) goes to the polls on May 29, 2022, for the first round, where leftist Gustavo Petro is at this time ahead in the polls. Chile votes for a new President on November 21, 2021, with the possibility of a left-wing coalition replacing the Pinochet-era Sebastián Piñera. Indeed, he must find himself in a relatively weak position, as his representative in Mexico did not dare criticize Maduro nor the CLACS goal of eventually replacing the OAS. This may be a good sign as to the outcome of the Chilean elections.
Thus, the orientation of combining the step-by-step institutionalization of CLACS while seeming to wait patiently for further left-wing shifts in the region’s political landscape so as to maximize the isolation of the inevitable US satellites (such as, this time, Paraguay and Uruguay) is farsighted and wise.
Yes, there is an urgent need to replace the OAS with CLACS. Perhaps no one outside the region, such as the anti-imperialist left in the US and Canada, feels this pressing demand as a result, for example, of the Canadian government’s leading role in alliance with the US in promoting violent regime change against the constitutionally elected President Maduro. It would be best for the Canadian government to reverse its pro-US course, which contributed to its humiliating defeat for a seat on the UN Security Council in June 2020, and instead respond favourably to the suggestion by some heads of states and governments in Mexico to form an alliance with CLACS based on mutual respect.
The replacement of the OAS by CLACS is inevitable. When? We do not know. However, just causes always triumph, especially when desired by an entire region. Look at the example of Cuba. Once expelled from the OAS, it is now at the very centre of regional integration to the extent that even mortal enemies of the Cuban Revolution had to sign on to an agreement in Mexico calling on the US to lift the criminal and genocidal blockade against Cuba. Furthermore, in Mexico, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel scored a knockout against the Uruguayan representative who provocatively expressed support for regime change in Cuba. He insulted Cuba, then Díaz-Canel firmly responded, followed by a whimpering Uruguayan “rebuttal”; the Cuban president then delivered the final blow. A dignified defense of Cuba by its president.
Thus, on that memorable day in Mexico, the specter of both Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro came back to haunt the US and its allies.
The eventual restoration of CLACS on the grave of the OAS will mean a major shift not only in regional geopolitics but also globally. Enter China. In July 2014, the regional leaders and China together declared the establishment of the China–CLACS Forum. At the invitation of the CLACS rotating presidency, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the CLACS Mexico Summit via videoconference with closed captioning in both Spanish and English. He said that the agreement opened a new avenue for cooperation between China, Latin America and the Caribbean as a whole. Its birth 10 years ago was a milestone in the process of integration of the area, because it took place amid the countries’ efforts to preserve their independence and self-strengthening. He affirmed that China attaches high relevance to strengthening relations with that organization and supported it in boosting greater cooperation among its members and in the search for solutions to face common challenges.
Thus, the eventual replacement of the OAS by CLACS will represent an enormous geopolitical planetary change. It will contribute further to the quest of world multipolarity against the US-led never-ending western’s goal of domination over the global south.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro together. Credit: Havana Times/Google Images
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Rt Hon Mr Boris Johnson MP, 10 Downing Street, Westminster, London SW1A 2AA
By Royal Mail [hand delivery banned] 22nd June 2020
Dear Prime Minister,
CHALLENGE TO PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND THAT THEY MUST SHOW PROOF THAT A VIRUS EXISTS WHICH CAUSES COVID-19 OR DECLARE THERE IS NO VIRUS AND END THE VAX AND TRAX PROGRAMMES
We understand that the World Health Organisation has advised Public Health England not to isolate and purify a ‘virus’ said to cause the disease ‘Covid-19.’
There are major questions over the validity of the testing procedures being used to determine the presence in the UK population of the putative ‘Covid19 virus’ specifically relating to the throat swab (RT-PCR test) and evidence of previous infection using antibody tests.
The disease-causing effects of any virus are scientifically verified using Koch’s Postulates of which four conditions must be met. Currently the virus thought to cause Covid-19 does not meet any of them.
Fulfillment of Koch’s Postulates requires that the so-called Covid-19 virus must be isolated and purified. This has not been done – therefore the accuracy of the tests authorized by Public Health England is unknown.
In summary, the tests for the Covid-19 virus are of unknown accuracy, scientific procedures for viral isolation and purification have not been followed and neither have any of the Koch methods for determining any disease causing effects.
Therefore, we demand that by July 22nd 2020, Public Health England must:
Produce independently peer reviewed scientific evidence proving that the Covid-19 virus has been isolated and purified in the reference laboratories run by Public Health England under the leadership of Professor Zambon (Imperial College London/SAGE member) ignoring the instructions not to do so issued by the World Health Organisation.
Produce independently peer reviewed scientific evidence proving that Covid- 19 virus causes disease using all of the Koch Postulates.
If the United Kingdom Government’s own health agency – Public Health England – CANNOT show independent and peer-reviewed proof that a virus exists which causes COVID-19 then the Government must DECLARE THERE IS NO SUCH VIRUS AND CEASE MEASURES AGAINST SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, including producing a vaccine and the Government’s Track+Trace policy.
Yours faithfully
Dr Kevin P. Corbett
BA (Art) University of Reading, Higher Diploma (Fine Art) Slade School of Fine Art University College London, MSc (Nursing) Kings College London, PGCE (Health Professions) University of Greenwich, PhD (Social Sciences) London South Bank University. 37-years nursing experience. UK-based visual artist; clinical nurse researcher specialised in acute, palliative & primary medical care, forensics, respiratory/infectious diseases (STIs, HIV & AIDS), medical screening and testing; Director KPC Research and Consultancy Ltd (management consultancy); extensive research publications on patient & citizen experience of medical science; international speaker at academic research meetings and conferences.
Piers Corbyn
Royal Scholar Imperial College, BSc (1st class) Imperial College, ARCS, MSc (Astrophysics, QMC), first democratically elected President Imperial College Students Union, Convenor Institute of Evidence-based Science; Founder and Director WeatherAction unique Solar-based long-range weather forecasters & CEO of former listed WeatherAction Holdings PLC, elected Fellow Royal Astronomical Society, elected corporate member (WeatherAction Holdings) Royal Meteorological Society, wide-ranging publications including on Meteorological Instrumentation, astronomy and coastline physics (pre-university), Cosmology and galaxy formation; Rights Campaigner, accomplished (with prizes) international presenter at Commercial, Agricultural and academic research conferences.
David Crowe
BSc (1st class Mathematics and Biology)
Canadian software engineer, expert witness, independent researcher of infectious disease models, host of a weekly radio programme called The Infectious Myth from US (New York) on PRN.FM http://theinfectiousmyth.com? President of Rethinking AIDS, wide-ranging publications and international speaker.
Dr Andrew R. Kaufman
BS (Molecular Biology), MD (Medicine)
U.S. Forensic Psychiatrist, Natural Healing Consultant, and Independent Researcher. Former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Medical Director Psychiatry Department, Research Committee Chair for American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Certified Expert Witness in local, state and federal courts, Founder and CEO of medical device start-up company (Zinnia Safety Systems), Holds two patents for medical devices, published several peer reviewed scientific papers and a medical textbook chapter.
Dr David Rasnick
BS (Biology), BS (Chemistry), PhD (Biochemistry)
U.S. independent scientist, Chromosomal Imbalance (Aneuploidy) Cancer Theorist, inventor DATE Analysis.pdf, former Chief Science Officer of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice, former Member of The Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa initiated by President Thabo Mbeki, former President of Rethinking AIDS, synthesizer of the first peptidyl-fluoromethanes, founder of biotechnology companies and wide-ranging publications and international speaker.
Professor Roger Watson
BSc (Biological Sciences), PhD (Biochemistry), FRCP Edinburgh, UK Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Advanced Nursing and Editor of Nursing Open, Professor of Nursing University of Hull UK, member of the UK 2014 Research Excellence Framework sub-panel for Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing & Pharmacy, Sigma Theta Tau International Nurse Researcher Hall of Fame and wide- ranging publications and international speaker.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A new report in the journal Toxicology Reports has warned that the health risks caused by COVID-19 vaccines are simply too high for children. Scientists from the United States and Europe reached this conclusion following a review of data showing that the risks related to vaccines outweigh any potential benefits they may provide to young people.
One of their chief concerns was the disease’s relatively low risk to young people. They wrote: “The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”
Another concern they outlined was the fact that clinical vaccine trials only spanned a few months and that the samples used did not represent the overall population. The small size of the trials in adolescents and children have a poor predictive power, and the trails did not address any changes in biomarkers that would have served as early warning indicators of a higher predisposition to serious disease.
In addition, the long-term effects were ignored. They wrote: “Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”
They also cited the high number of post-inoculation deaths reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – a system that has been shown historically to only report around 1 percent of the actual vaccine adverse events that take place, they point out. Moreover, the deaths shown in VAERS so far are short-term only – around one month in children – which means it doesn’t take into account potential deaths in the intermediate and long term from problems like clotting, autoimmune effects, and antibody-dependent enhancement that take longer to develop.
The report said that in a conservative cost-benefit analysis of the best-case scenario, there are five times as many deaths attributable to each inoculation versus those that can be attributed to the disease in the most vulnerable demographic, people aged 65 and above. And because the risk of dying from COVID-19 is reduced dramatically as age decreases, the longer-term effects of these shots on the younger age groups could raise their risk-benefit ratio substantially.
Pfizer moving forward with push to vaccinate young children
Nevertheless, last week, Pfizer announced that clinical trials have shown its vaccine is safe and effective in children aged 5 to 11 at a dose of a third of the amount being given to adolescents and adults and that they plan to submit their data to the FDA soon. This came just three days after an FDA advisory panel voted against the drug giant’s application for a COVID-19 booster shot for Americans over 16.
They cited several concerns in their decision, including a lack of sufficient data to assess the risks of Pfizer’s vaccine to younger groups. In particular, they highlighted the potential higher risk of heart inflammation, particularly among young men aged 16 and 17. The vaccine currently only has emergency use authorization for children aged 12 to 15.
The company is also studying the vaccine in even younger age groups, including ages 2 to 5 and six months to age 2. However, those trials have not yet been completed. They are looking at children in more than 90 locations in the U.S., Spain, Poland and Finland, some of whom have previously been infected with the virus and others who have not. Johnson & Johnson and Moderna have also been studying their vaccines in children but neither has completed its research.
Despite the report’s finding, it appears that the recent return to school and controversy over mask wearing among students will be used to justify a push to line children up for this potentially dangerous vaccine.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, Sofia Benharira passed away on September 21, 7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine.
This is happening all over the World: Children and adolescents are dying.
Either the media fails to report vaccine related deaths or it states (with authority) that the deaths are attributable to Covid-19.
Crimes agains humanity, crimes against our children. The media also bears responsibility.
And did you know that Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice.
The “vaccine poison” imposed at the level of the entire planet is produced by a pharmaceutical company which has been indicted by the US Department of Justice (2009) on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.
The vaccine must be halted immediately.
May Sofia Benharira Rest in Peace. Her passing should send the following message to parents Worldwide:
Pfizer is killing our children. And our governments are being bribed by Big Pharma.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 29, 2021
***
Sofia Benharira, 16 years old, dies following the Pfizer vaccination.
Sofia Benharira, 16 ans, est décédée suite à la vaccination au Pfizer.
Étudiante au Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardanne (13) à Aix-en-Provence est décédée le 21 septembre, 7 jours après avoir reçu l'injection pfizer .
Obsèques cet après-midi à l’église de Gardanne de Sofia Benharira, 16 ans.
Elle était en bonne santé, Elle aurait fait 2 arrêts cardiaques après la seconde injection du 14 septembre, Elle est morte le 21 septembre. En commentaire le témoignage de sa marraine (sa tante)
Obsèques cet après-midi à l’église de Gardanne de Sofia Benharira 16 ans. Elle était en bonne santé, Elle aurait fait 2 arrêts cardiaques après la seconde injection💉 du 14 septembre, Elle est morte le 21 septembre. En commentaire le témoignage de sa marraine (sa tante) pic.twitter.com/935WM5tSdi
Our thanks to Pierre Racquia for having brought this report to the attention of Global Research.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
I have had confirmation of my report last Saturday that Norway has terminated all Covid restrictions (see this).I am uncertain whether it is an immediate termination or the beginning of a phase out.
Norway’s equivalent to the CDC has downgraded Covid-19 to a strong flu.
There will be no Covid passport.In Sweden Covid restrictions are scheduled to end this Wednesday September 29. The Danish government decided two weeks ago to end Covid restrictions.
The President ofCroatia has also declared: “We will not be vaccinated anymore.”(see this) Have you heard any of this on CNN, NPR, MSNBC or read it in The NY Times?
How do we explain Scandinaviaand Croatia going the opposite direction to the EU?
It is a known fact the the EU government is authoritarian, not democratic.Power rests in an unelected Commission.As Covid restrictions are a boon to authoritarianism, perhaps the Scandinavian governments have decided against that direction.
The Scandinavian position is also totally different from the US one where the CNN-NPR-MSNBC-NY Times lie machine and Big Pharma shills such as Fauci, Walensky, and the White House Idiot continue to push for mask mandates, vaccination of children, booster shots, and firings and lockdowns if there is public resistance to any more inoculation.
The lie machine keeps turning out propaganda that adverse reactions to the vaccine are new Covid cases among the unvaccinated, that the vaccine protects despite requiring endless boosters and that if it doesn’t protect it still reduces Covid mortality, that 1,000,000 American children have Covid, and every other lie they can concoct to drive people into more injections. Is profit the only motive?Probably not. Elite Americans are the largest audience at the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” indoctrinations.
If Scandinavia can recover from the Covid brainwashing, why cannot the US, UK, and EU?
And what is wrong with Israel?Jews are supposed to be intelligent.Yet Israel continues a self-defeating policy in the face of Israeli mainstream media broadcasts that the vaccination policy is a total failure— see this.If the English translation of the news broadcast is correct, of the previous day’s new 279 Covid cases in Israel, 259 were “fully vaccinated.”Only 29 were “unvaccinated.” In other words 90% of the new Israeli Covid cases were fully vaccinated people.
The Israeli news broadcast goes on to report that the US CDC has admitted that people infected with the “Delta variant” have the same viral load whether or not they are fully vaccinated. In other words, vaccinated people can spread the virus as easily as the unvaccinated and thus the policy of excluding vaccinated Covid patients from quarantine is nonsensical. The news announcer says such questions are not discussed because of concern that people will not bother to take the vaccine. The only remaining reason the news announcer can find for taking the vaccine is the unverified, and almost certainly false, claim that whereas you have no protection from the vaccine against catching Covid, you have a smaller chance of dying from the virus if you are vaccinated.This conclusion leaves out the known injuries and deaths from the vaccine itself, but there is probably a limit to what the news organization can report.
So there you have it.The only remaining justification for being vaccinated is the unverified claim that although the vaccine will not reduce your chance of catching Covid, it will reduce your chance of dying from Covid as long as you ignore the chance of serious health injury or death from the vaccine itself.
Obviously, Israel should turn an eye to India, Japan, and Africa where Ivermectin is in widespread use and has shut down Covid.This policy is far more safe, efficient, and much less costly than the mRNA vaccines.Why is the Israeli government ignoring the obvious solution and instead conducting a Holocaust policy against Israeli Jews?
Why are the US, UK, EU, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand governments conducting a Holocaust policy against their own people?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Romanian prosecutors have opened investigation into the country’s Covid vaccine acquisitions and has also shutdown its vaccine centers as people have refused the experimental jabs.
The European Ombudsman has demanded that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explain how she lost text messages that she exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer during talks about vaccine procurement.
Now, even the Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) has announced that it opened investigations related to the circumstances under which Romania purchased [too many, prosecutors seem to imply] Covid vaccines.
“As far as I know, the procedures followed for the procurement [of vaccines] in all European Union countries were the same, and they were developed by the European Commission,” Valeriu Gheorghiță, the head of the national vaccination campaign, said, according to Hotnews.ro.
Prosecutors said that the investigations are opened in order to spot potential “abuse of office” [implying personal benefits derived by those so far unidentified] involved.
Notably, the health ministry was managed until early September by the reformist USR-PLUS party, which pulled out of the ruling coalition meanwhile and launched a no-confidence motion against the Government. But the ministry of health was not directly involved in the procurement.
Romania has also shutdown its vaccine centers as people have refused the experimental jabs.
Declining demand for coronavirus vaccinations in Romania has prompted authorities to close 117 vaccination centres and to reduce the schedule at 371 others, health officials have said.
“In the previous week, we re-evaluated the efficiency of fixed vaccination centers. About 80% of fixed vaccination centres vaccinate less than 25% of the vaccination capacity allocated to each stream,” national vaccination committee chief Valeriu Gheorghita said at a press conference on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, more than 14,000 doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine were thrown away in the past month alone due to the lack of interest from the public.
Even, Singapore is studying the possibility of using non-mRNA vaccines as booster shots and is in talks with suppliers to obtain the vials, said Senior Minister of State for Health Janil Puthucheary in Parliament.
Recently, the President of Croatia hammered the media Monday after a reporter asked why the vaccination rate in Croatia is not as high as in other European Union countries.
Croatians have been “vaccinated enough” and should be allowed to accept the risks of becoming infected with COVID on their own terms, according to President Zoran Milanović.
“We need to know what the goal of this frenzy is. If the goal is to completely eradicate the #virus, then we have the goal. I have not heard that this is the goal. If someone tells me it’s a goal, I will tell him he’s out of his mind.”
“We will not go more than 50 percent, let them fence us with wire,” Milanović said in recent statements to the press. “I don’t care. We’re vaccinated enough and everyone knows it.”
“We need to know what the goal of this frenzy is. If the goal is to completely eradicate the virus, then we have the goal. I have not heard that this is the goal. If someone tells me it’s a goal, I will tell him he’s out of his mind.”
President Milanović broke with the majority of his contemporaries in expressing frustration over medical authoritarianism and COVID hysteria pushed by the mainstream media and the globalists.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Following revelations that Federal Reserve officials made trades in financial assets while the Fed was taking extraordinary efforts to “stimulate” the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell ordered a review of the Fed’s ethics rules. While these trades appear problematic, they pale in comparison to the biggest Fed scandal — the Fed’s impoverishment of ordinary Americans, enrichment of the elites, and facilitation of government debt and deficits.
The depression induced by coronavirus, though really caused by so-called public health actions government took in response, was the official reason for the Fed’s increased asset purchases last year. However, the Fed actually started ramping up its money creating activities in September of 2019, when it began pouring billions a day into the repo markets, which banks use to make short-term loans to each other, in order to keep repo market interest rates low.
Coronavirus was just a convenient excuse for the Fed to do more of what it was already doing. Now, the Fed is using the limited reopening as a scapegoat for rising prices. Of course, anyone who understands Austrian economics understands that rising prices are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation. Inflation is the very act of money creation by the Fed.
Rising prices that diminish the average American’s standard of living are not the only result of the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply. The manipulation distorts economic signals, producing results including booms, bubbles, and busts.
Inflation has always benefited the well-connected elites who receive the Fed’s newly created money before the new money causes widespread price increases. The true motivation behind Fed policies was revealed by former Fed official Andrew Huszar in 2013. Huszar, writing for the Wall Street Journal, confirmed that quantitative easing kept stock prices high, instead of helping Americans struggling with the aftereffects of the 2008 meltdown.
Other beneficiaries of the Fed are big-spending politicians. The Federal Reserve’s purchase of federal debt instruments keeps the federal government’s debt servicing costs manageable. This is why, despite Chairman Powell’s recent suggestion that the Fed will soon begin “tapering” its purchases of Treasuries, the Fed is unlikely to significantly reduce its purchase of Treasuries or allow interest rates to significantly increase.
Powell is also unlikely to upset President Biden and Biden’s congressional allies as long as progressives are urging Biden not to reappoint Powell. Progressives want to replace Powell with someone more committed to fighting climate change and systemic racism, two boogeymen routinely bought out as excuses for vast expansions in government spending and power.
Another major scandal involving the Fed is Congress’ refusal to pass the Audit the Fed bill and let the American people know the truth about the Fed’s operations. Audit the Fed authorizes a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Fed’s dealing with foreign governments and central banks, the Fed’s discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market transactions. Audit the Fed would finally reveal the truth about the Fed’s operations.
A limited audit authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act found that between 2007 and 2010, the Federal Reserve committed over 16 trillion dollars to foreign central banks and politically influential private companies. Imagine what a full audit would find. It is time to end the scandal of allowing a secretive central bank to have so much power over the economy and our liberty. It is time to audit, and end, the Fed.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Revelations that the CIA discussed the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confirm the staggering criminality of the US and British ruling class. By rights, they should see the US extradition case against Assange still proceeding through the UK High Court thrown out, and the investigation and prosecution of the conspirators up to the highest level of the US and UK governments and their intelligence agencies.
According to an investigation by Yahoo News published Sunday, President Donald Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo christened WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” in 2017 to make its employees and associates a legitimate target for CIA “offensive counterintelligence” activities.
Pompeo then asked for plans to be drawn up for Assange’s kidnap or assassination. The report is based on information from more than 30 US sources. Both Pompeo and the CIA have refused to comment.
These sources, former top US officials, explain that the US manhunt of Assange escalated dramatically after the publication of the “Vault 7” leaks in March 2017, exposing intimate details of CIA spying operations. Three sources stated that plans were discussed to kill the WikiLeaks founder, with Trump reportedly asking for “options” from the agency on how this could be done. CIA heads apparently requested and were provided “sketches” of assassination plans and discussions were had on “whether killing Assange was possible and whether it was legal,” according to one source.
Plans for Assange’s kidnap, in the event of a Russian-backed escape from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange had claimed asylum, included ramming a Russian diplomatic vehicle, shoot-outs with Russian agents in the streets of London and, as a last resort, shooting the tyres of any Russian plane trying to carry Assange out of the country. A senior official told Yahoo that Britain agreed “to do the shooting if gunfire was required.”
Yahoo’s investigation confirms and substantially expands on claims subject to a current court case in Spain that the firm UC Global, which provided security for Ecuador’s London embassy, worked with the CIA to spy on Assange and discussed his kidnap and assassination.
There is nothing the least surprising about the existence of plans for Assange’s murder. US imperialism has despatched its professional assassins all over the world to secure its interests for decades. The Assange plot recalls the murder of Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier in 1976, whose car was blown up in Washington D.C., just a mile from the White House. Organised by Augusto Pinochet’s secret police, the killing was facilitated by US intelligence under Operation Condor—though this has always been denied.
What is new today is the increasingly unguarded character of ruling class violence and repression. Plots once organised through accomplices, kept closely under wraps and strenuously denied are now carried out in ever more open fashion.
The admitted murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018 by agents of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, elicited only the most token “condemnation” by the US and UK governments.
Just over a week ago, the New York Times gloried in the US-Israeli assassination of Iranian physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Assange’s own killing was widely discussed shortly after the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and US diplomatic cables leaks. In 2012, WikiLeaks produced a video, titled “Assassinating Assange,” collecting the threats made against his life by prominent figures in the previous two years.
Commentators on Fox News called for the then Obama administration to “illegally shoot the son of a b****,” “have the CIA take him out” and say, “if we catch you, we’re gonna hang you.” Former Republican speaker of the house Newt Gingrich said Assange had “engaged in terrorism” and “should be treated as an enemy combatant.” He was agreed with by then Vice President Joe Biden, who labelled Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly asked in private, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”
There is no doubt that high-level discussions regarding Assange’s possible assassination took place under Obama. Sunday’s revelations demonstrate that the Trump administration, in response to continued WikiLeaks releases causing serious damage to US imperialism and an explosion of domestic class tensions, sought ever more recklessly to realise this aim. Moreover, their leaking by so many sources must be related to the escalating factional warfare in ruling circles regarding Trump’s January 6 coup plot.
The close involvement of the British state in these plans sheds light on the January 4 surprise ruling by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that Assange should not be extradited to the US due to the “substantial risk” of his suicide. That ruling was challenged by the US, which this August was granted expanded grounds to appeal the decision in a hearing before the High Court scheduled for October 27-28.
Clearly, the type of “suicide” Baraitser had in mind was a murder orchestrated by the US state. The pseudo-legal pursuit of Assange was an ancillary operation to the kill or capture mission discussed by the CIA. Once Assange was in the clutches of the US prison system, he could meet a similar fate to that of Jeffrey Epstein—who supposedly hanged himself in his cell in August 2019 before being called to testify in a sex trafficking case implicating dozens of the most powerful figures in American society.
In the knowledge of this plot, the UK ruling class evidently felt it lacked sufficient deniability in January for such a barefaced murder of a journalist whose imprisonment it has overseen for the past decade. Every action taken by the British judiciary since the original denial of extradition, however, has been in the US government’s favour. By proceeding with the case, the British state is knowingly complicit in an ongoing conspiracy to murder or otherwise silence Assange forever.
Also complicit are the world’s media, above all the “liberal” Guardian in the UK and the New York Times in the US. At the time of writing, the Times had not reported on the Yahoo News revelations at all. The Guardian only published an article late on Monday evening (9 pm BST) and buried it in its media section.
Despite feeling belatedly forced to make a show of opposition to Assange’s extradition, these papers continue to do all in their power to obscure the full implications of a case that reveals the total, unreformable criminality of US, British and world imperialism. They have painted the extradition proceedings as a case of ill-advised overreach by embarrassed governments, which should be ruled against by a wiser judiciary.
These latest exposures blow this fraud apart. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Assange’s extradition must be dropped immediately. The US has not even the formal right to seek his extradition—under UK law, no one can be extradited to a country where they have a chance of facing the death penalty—and the UK has no right to hear his case. Both governments are party to kidnap and murder plots against him.
These facts alone do not offer any guarantee of Assange’s safety. In her ruling against extradition, Baraitser said of the defence’s evidence on UC Global and CIA surveillance that “there is no reason to assume this related to these proceedings” and that “fruits of any surveillance would not be seen by prosecutors assigned to the case.”
Baraitser’s statement proves there is no purely judicial route to Assange’s freedom. What is necessary is the construction of a mass international movement, rooted in the working class.
Building such a movement requires a complete rejection of the appeals made by those like the official Don’t Extradite Assange campaign to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Joe Biden and even, when he was president, Trump. All of these figures, together with their heads of intelligence and their deputies, are implicated in a plot to kill the WikiLeaks founder. The fight to free Assange is bound up with the struggle to put these imperialist gangsters in the dock in his place.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Afghanistan’s US-run government was the world’s largest producer and exporter of opium, morphine, and the end-product, heroin.
As it did after first seizing power in the mid-1990’s, Taliban, the Islamic anti-drug and anti-communist movement, is shutting down the Afghan drug trade. Billions worth of heroin, opium and morphine that had been flowing into Central Asia, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Southeast Asia will be sharply reduced. Afghanistan’s drug-based economy is now in dire jeopardy.
But you would not know this if you follow the biased western press, notably the big US TV networks, social media and the BBC which thinks it’s Britain’s old colonial office. Western media has focused almost exclusively on the supposed plight of well-off westernized Afghan women in Kabul. That’s all you see on TV.
That these pampered ladies can’t easily get their nails done is not Afghanistan’s biggest problem. Nor is the closing of dance studios or fashion boutiques.
What really matters is that Afghan wedding parties and villages are no longer being savaged by US warplanes or B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers, or that wide scale torture by the Communist-run secret police, whose head, Amrullah Saleh, was a key US ally and the nation’s real strongmen, has been ended by Taliban.
Meanwhile, western media simply ignores the plight of women in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. I well recall being twice arrested in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia by religious police for walking with an attractive lady (an Estee Lauder beauty consultant).
I was arrested in Kuwait under similar suspicion. I was whipped by Saudi airport security police. And yet all we hear about or see are films of wicked Taliban soldiers maltreating Afghan women.
What I really want to know is what happened to all the billions in drug money reaped by the US-backed regime in Kabul and its allied warlords? Where are the pallets of fresh US $100 bills flown in from Washington to finance the Kabul regime? We saw the same phenomena in US-occupied Iraq. These mountains of cash just went ‘walkabout,’ as the Aussies say. Americans and US Arab allies grabbed the majority of these missing funds.
Iraq and Afghanistan account for one of the biggest thefts of money in modern history. Much of this sordid story has been documented by the US government’s own anti-corruption agency, SIGAR, which has waged a valiant battle to combat crime in Afghanistan during the $2 trillion, two-decade war.
Many of the drug-dealing criminals have already bailed out of Afghanistan via a US/British/French airlift. Others, Taliban opponents, mostly Tajik and Uzbek gang bosses, have managed to gain refuge in neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
The most formidable opposition to Taliban came from the Tajik Northern Alliance in the Panjshir Valley north of Kabul. This US-allied group dominated the drug trade until run out of business by Taliban. Now it’s trying to rally with secret backing from France, India and the US.
China is playing a cautious game in Afghanistan. I was invited by Chinese military intelligence to Beijing in 1981 to ask me if Beijing should begin supplying arms to the Afghan Islamic anti-Soviet resistance, aka ‘mujahidin.’ This was the most momentous act in the growing China-Soviet split. No one in Washington seemed to see or understand it.
Forty years later, China is still wrestling with this problem. Beijing wants good relations with Taliban but is seriously scared by the notion of Islamic wild men who support freedom and independence for the Chinese-ruled Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang (Eastern Turkestan).
Meanwhile, the great American-Afghan money machine has ground to a halt as its produce is secreted away in US real estate and Swiss banks.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Health professionals in Australia, the UK and the US have expressed their deep concerns at Australia’s proposed acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines with UK and US assistance, stating that the plan will jeopardise global health and security. Their concerns are set out in a briefing paper.
IPPNW Co-President Dr Tilman Ruff said
“Humanity is in the midst of a major pandemic, and facing twin existential threats of dire urgency—global heating and the growing danger of nuclear war. COVID vaccines are still out of reach for most of the world’s poor people. If ever there was a time to build goodwill, and focus on cooperation to address complex global problems, that time is now. Instead, the proposed submarines would increase tensions and militarisation across Asia and the Pacific region, fuel an arms race and risk deepening a new cold war involving China. They would embroil Australia in a nuclear war-fighting strategy, increase the danger of armed conflict erupting and escalating to nuclear war in which there could be no winners.”
Australia’s submarines are very likely to be fueled, as US and UK submarines are, by highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is directly usable in nuclear weapons. The US and the UK have resisted and delayed efforts to convert their naval reactors to much less proliferation-prone low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU) as France and China have done.
The proposed Australian submarines could well encourage other states, such as South Korea, Japan and Iran to pursue a similar path. Some within Australia, including within government, have used the recent announcement to call for Australia to embrace nuclear power and, alarmingly, there are calls for Australia to be prepared to acquire its own nuclear weapons. Submarine reactors fuelled with HEU would provide raw material with which to achieve this goal.
Dr Sue Wareham, President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia), said,
“The nuclear weapons proliferation potential of this deal will be significant. A government assurance on the matter is totally inadequate. Other nations will see it differently.”
Adding to proliferation risks is the UK announcement in March of a planned 40% increase in its nuclear arsenal, which is in breach of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. The UK and US are modernising their nuclear arsenals, also in breach of their NPT commitment to disarm.
Dr Elisabeth McElderry, International Councillor of Medact (UK), said of the new agreement
“Resources are needed both at home and worldwide to improve health and care services, and to reduce the drivers of conflict, displacement and disease. It is very disappointing that the United Kingdom continues to promote armament exports, in this case with added nuclear dangers, which goes in the opposite direction of the UK Government statement in May of this year that ‘investing in conflict prevention is the right thing to do.“
There is the additional risk of accidents and terrorist attack. Such disasters while a nuclear-powered vessel is in port risks harmful radioactive contamination of cities. Many cities around the world oppose visits of such vessels to their harbours for that reason. A total of 8 nuclear-powered submarines have sunk because of accidents at sea between 1963 and 2003, contributing to the radioactive pollution of our oceans.
The high level radioactive waste from reactors poses a further long-term problem for which there is thus far no solution. Already, Australia’s problem of managing its much smaller amount of intermediate level radioactive waste is not resolved.
All three nations involved in this deal should turn their attention from arming the world to supporting global efforts for a nuclear weapons free world. The most important step that they—and other nations that have not done so—could take to hasten this goal would be to join the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Dr David E. Drake, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA), noted
“Let’s not forget that ‘On the Beach’ depicted the end of the world, focused on Australia. Instead of ramping up a new cold war, we must cooperate to decrease tensions and work toward eliminating all weapons of mass destruction, while we still can.”
If Australia does proceed to acquire nuclear submarines, it should insist on LEU fuel and implement stringent safeguards, the submarines should be configured so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons, and nothing about their construction or operation should impede Australia joining the TPNW.
All nations, including Australia, the US and the UK, should be doing absolutely everything possible to avoid a military escalation and confrontation with China, and reduce rather than exacerbate the danger of nuclear war.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: The USS John Warner, a nuclear-powered submarine of the type Australia will soon be developing. Source: US Navy
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
al-Quds [Jerusalem] reports that Palestinians in the West Bank greeted President Mahmoud Abbas’s UN speech, in which he pledged to take Israel to the International Criminal Court if its squatter-settlements weren’t withdrawn within a year, with widespread acclaim.
The International Criminal Court decided in March of this year that it has jurisdiction over the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza because the Palestine Authority has invited it to consider rights abuses there. Palestine is a signatory to the Statute of Rome, which established the ICC at the Hague in the late 1990s, and member states can ask the court to take up cases. Palestine was able to become a signatory because it was granted the status of non-member observer state at the UN by the General Assembly in 2012. This is the same status enjoyed by the Vatican.
Fatah greeted the speech as “an historic document” from the Palestinians to the world. Muhammad Gharib saw it as a gauntlet thrown down to international institutions demanding that they abide by their own principles and resolutions and that they cease their double standard when it comes to Palestine.
The Palestine National Council said that Friday’s speech before the UN General Assembly returned the Palestinian cause to its roots in that it focused on the creation of a Palestinian state in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 181, which called for partition of British Mandate Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states, and resolution 194, which called for the return of Palestinian refugees to Palestine. The chair of the PNC, Salim Zanoun, underlined that the plan would require the unity of the various Palestinian parties and factions.
He pointed out the Abbas’s speech put the onus on international bodies, including the UN, to be responsible about the establishment of a Palestinian state with genuine sovereignty.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says he will not allow a Palestinian state to be formed, in stark contrast to the Biden administration’s stated support for a two-state solution. Despite Israeli attempts to depict the Palestinians as unwilling to negotiate, it seems clear that the road block is the Israeli government, which has put out of bounds the very goal of any negotiations before they could start.
Israel seized the Palestinian Territories by main force in 1967 and has egregiously violated international law by illegally annexing some of them and by flooding hundreds of thousands of its own citizens into the Palestinian West Bank, stealing land owned by Palestinian families on which to settle these squatters. Its occupation has a shape incompatible with the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention on Occupied territories of 1949, and so is itself illegal.
The Fatah Youth Movement said it would attempt to implement Abbas’s speech by improving communication among Palestinian youth and confronting the Israeli Occupation’s creeping annexation of Palestinian-owned land.
The Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA) praised the speech as a road map for Palestine in the coming phase. It also called for new Palestinian elections.
Russia’s Sputnik news service reports that political scientist and Palestine Authority adviser on international relations Osama Shaath said that Abbas’s speech placed a burden on the international community. He underlined Abbas’s “demand to hold an international peace conference under international auspices and under international supervision to implement United Nations resolutions, especially Resolution No. 2334.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Multiple lawsuits are pending in the United States against Syngenta alleging the weedkilling chemical paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.
A notice of settlement was filed June 18, 2021 for several paraquat cases. See this document.
But more than 100 lawsuits remain pending.
The lawsuits name Syngenta as well as Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and Growmark Inc. as defendants. Chevron distributed and sold Gramoxone paraquat product in the United States in an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.
Lawyers around the United States are advertising for plaintiffs, seeking to draw in thousands of people who’ve been exposed to paraquat and now suffer from Parkinson’s.
Here is a list of actions pending through Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) as of Aug. 2, 2021
Harker v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. CGC-21-589755 (San Francisco Superior Court) (coordinated June 11, 2021)
De La Vega v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01057. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated July 19, 2021)
Louis Lombardo v. Syngenta et al., Alameda County Superior Court; Case No. RG21100757, filed on May 26, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
Lonnie Owens et al. v. Syngenta et al., Contra Costa Superior Court; Case No. C21-01187, filed on June 4, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
Borrelli v. Syngenta AG, et al. (Case No. MSC21-01217), filed June 24, 2021 in Contra Costa County Superior Court (coordinated July 23, 2021)
Isaak v. Syngenta AG, et al., San Francisco Superior Court; Case No. CGC-21591254 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
Rubino v. Syngenta, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C2101422 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
Aguiar v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01373. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated August 2, 2021)
Multidistrict litigation
On April 7, 2021, the Fears Nachawati Texas-based law firm filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C., asking that pending paraquat lawsuits be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California, the same federal court where Roundup litigation was consolidated. The case with the judicial panel is MDL No. 3004. The panel hearing on the matter was May 27 and on June 7, the panel approved the formation of the paraquat multidistrict litigation, assigning it to Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois.
Additionally, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Iowa on May 3. The suit seeks “equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, including, but not limited to, the costs of diagnostic testing” for farmers and others exposed to paraquat who are allegedly at “increased risk” for Parkinson’s, according to the legal filing.
At least 86 lawsuits were pending within the MDL as of September 10, 2021.
Science
Several scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, including a large study of U.S. farmers jointly overseen by multiple U.S. government agencies. Farmers use paraquat in the production of many crops, including corn, soy and cotton. The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) said it found that “exposure to agricultural pesticides may increase a person’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” In 2011, AHS researchers reported that “participants who used paraquat or rotenone were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as people who didn’t use these chemicals.”
A more recent paper from AHS researchers stated that “Extensive literature suggests an association between general pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, with few exceptions, little is known about associations between specific pesticides and PD.”
Parkinson’s is an incurable progressive nervous system disorder that limits a person’s ability to control movement, causing tremors, loss of balance and eventually often leaving victims bedridden and/or bound to a wheelchair. The disease is not necessarily fatal but typically becomes severely debilitating.
Dutch neurologist Bastiaan Bloem, who recently authored a book about Parkinson’s, blames widespread exposure to herbicides such as paraquat, along with other toxic chemicals used in agriculture and manufacturing, for the spread of the disease.
Acutely Toxic
Along with fears about links between paraquat and Parkinson’s, paraquat is also known to be an extremely acutely toxic chemical that can quickly kill people who ingest very small amounts. In Europe, the sale of paraquat has been banned since 2007, but in the United States the pesticide is sold as a “Restricted Use Pesticide” due to “acute toxicity.”
As part of discovery in the Parkinson’s litigation, lawyers have obtained internal records from Syngenta and its predecessor corporate entities dating back to the 1960s. Many of these documents are sealed, but some have started to come to light.
Those unsealed discovery documents, which include copies of letters, minutes of meetings, study summaries, and emails, are being made available on this page.
Most of the documents unsealed to date deal with corporate discussions about how to keep paraquat herbicides on the market despite its deadliness, through measures designed to reduce accidental poisonings. Specifically, many of the documents detail an internal corporate struggle over the addition of an emetic, a vomit-inducing agent, to paraquat products. Today, all Syngenta paraquat-containing products include an emetic called “PP796.” Liquid paraquat-containing formulations from Syngenta also include a stenching agent to produce a foul odor, and a blue dye to differentiate the dark-colored herbicide from tea or cola or other beverages.
EPA Review
Paraquat recently underwent the EPA’s registration review process, and on August 2, 2021 the agency said paraquat would remain on the market with new safety measures aimed at reducing farmworker exposures. That followed the Oct. 23, 2020 release of a proposed interim decision (PID) for paraquat. The interim decision proposed mitigation measures to reduce human health and ecological risks identified in the agency’s 2019 draft human health and ecological risk assessments.
The EPA had indicated it would likely ban most aerial spraying of paraquat, but after industry lobbying efforts, the agency said it would allow such use with restrictions around residential areas.
USRTK will add documents to this page as they become available.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
By coincidence, perhaps, on the same day that President Biden hosted the first Quad summit, he also cleared the way for a senior executive of Huawei Technologies to return to Beijing — “removing one major irritant between the two superpowers,” as the New York Times put it.
Meng Wanzhou’s release made headlines overshadowing the QUAD event. Beijing reciprocated instantly by releasing a former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor. Meng’s detention had “major geopolitical implications, further souring relations between Beijing and both Washington and Ottawa,” Washington Post noted.
Perhaps, something of that “feel-good” rubbed on the QUAD joint statement, where Washington agreed that the grouping stood for “a free and open Indo-Pacific, which is also inclusive and resilient.”[Emphasis added.]
Washington’sstubborn refusal to utter that 9-letter word “inclusive” was meant to be a jab at China, and the shift is a sign of realism. It hints at renewed overture to the ASEAN and an attempt to assuage the European sentiments aggrieved over the US pivot away from the transatlantic alliance.
Contextually, as WaPo put it, “Coming on the heels of a diplomatic blowup over a US plan to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia [AUKUS], the Biden administration sought to play down the idea that the Quad grouping could become a new kind of trans-Pacific military alliance. Rather, US officials call it “informal” and nonmilitary. Biden also did not mention China by name during his address to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, though he told the gathering that he does not seek “a new Cold War.”
The desire to counterbalance China drove the QUAD countries to invest in intellectual and diplomatic terms in the “Indo-Pacific” concept, but the issue of cohesion remained unresolved. Historically, multilateralism is a complex idea for Asian psyche, given their saga of national liberation from colonial rule in the last century and their trajectory of nation-building riveted on hard-won national sovereignty.
Unease over China’s rise is simply not sufficient enough to rally behind the American flag. This remains the great fault line in the “Indo-Pacific” concept. Belatedly, the Americans seem to grasp that India cannot be made a compliant partner.
While India’s relationship with China is far from optimal today, its abiding interest to get close to China is also self-evident. Simply put, geopolitics gives impetus for India to be an autonomous actor.
India gains nothing out of antagonising China or being used as a proxy diplomatic weapon and, certainly, it has no reason to carry the burden of others’ rivalries with China. Fundamentally, India has its own strategic interests, like the ASEAN countries, and is a stakeholder in the stability of the Asian continent.
So far, the QUAD’s output has been rather meagre. The joint statement once again speaks mostly in generalities. The only concrete outcome is the creation of the Quad Fellowship, which will provide 100 graduate fellowships to leading science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate students across the four countries. No small initiative, but not enough to write home about.
When it comes to hot button issues, though, with all the huffing and puffing by the QUAD, China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains the more compelling international vision than the “Indo-Pacific”. It has caught the imagination of the world, as is apparent from the big attendance at the biannual BRI summits in China. Basically, BRI is flexible and specific, while “Indo-Pacific” is ideological and other-worldly. It is not difficult to see why the QUAD has a scratchy record.
Washington has been desperately in need of some foreign-policy showpiece in the aftermath of the defeat and humiliating retreat from Afghanistan and it announced theAUKUS. But the US behaviour towards France, a major key NATO ally, a nuclear power and a permanent UN Security Council member, is something unprecedented, even Trump did not allow himself such boorish behaviour.
AUKUS has serious nuclear proliferation risks and violates the spirit of the NPT, as the US nuclear submarines are fuelled by HEU of above 90%, which is weapon-grade nuclear material. It undercuts the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and ASEAN countries’ efforts to build a non-free zone in Southeast Asia — all in all, severely undermining regional peace and stability.
Meanwhile, France’s relations with Australia and the US are now severely damaged, whereas France also happens to be a serious Indo-Pacific power with significant sovereign interests, which hosts some 1.5 million citizens and more than 90% of its large EEZ (9 million km²) and maintains a military presence of 8,000 personnel to take care of this vast area.
Make no mistake, France’s Indo-Pacific commitment will not weaken and it will step up efforts to build up a network of middle powers in the region, including India, outside the orbit of QUAD and AUKUS. The French and European’s inclusive visions for the Indo-Pacific are also convergent with the ASEAN approach. Clearly, the decision on AUKUS is a hasty move by a besieged US president who took heavy battering lately on the foreign policy front. Beijing is taking it calmly. read more
There are contrarian currents in play in the Indo-Pacific. Curiously, Beijing lobbied Australian parliament as recently as in early September to help it to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in a nuanced signal that the two economies have enormous potential for cooperation despite recent hiccups in their relationship.
Chinese pundits envisage Canberra’s support to China in joining CPTPP in exchange for Beijing reopening its market to Australian products before the election next year. Unsurprisngly, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has called on the Biden Administration to “revoke the wrong decision” on AUKUS.
At any rate, Australia is a novice in building nuclear submarines. A Russian analyst wrote in Vzglyad newspaper: “Is it possible for the Australians to meet the deadlines?.. And this requires, firstly, shipyards in sufficient quantity to build submarines; secondly, workers and engineers; and thirdly, the supply of components from the United States, which can become the bottleneck of the project because of the existing crisis in American shipbuilding. Does Australia have all this in the right amount? The allies will not be able to help; they do not have enough themselves.”
The Americans themselves take five years to build one ‘Virginia’ from the point of laying the keel to delivery to the US Navy! Such being the case, Australia’s fleet of nuclear submarines armed with ballistic missiles will need several decades to see the light of day.
Meanwhile, trends emerging in Sino-US economic and trade development show great momentum so much so that the new Chinese ambassador in Washington Qin Gang noted thoughtfully the other day,
“If we compare China-US relations to a giant ship, then economic and trade cooperation has been its ballast and propeller. When the ship sails against heavy winds and huge waves, we need to add more strength to the ballast and propeller.” read more
Suffice to say, Biden’s decision on Meng’s release is a big gesture alongside his quiet burial of the Covid-19 origin file. The ultimate litmus test for Beijing would be, arguably, that Biden orders that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is put back in the US State Departments’s list of terrorist groups. Biden has already proposed a summit meeting with President Xi Jinping.
The message out of the QUAD summit is that the consummate statesman in Biden didn’t visualise it as a game-changing event to corner China. He passed on to Vice-President Kamala Harris the delegation level talks with PM Modi.
In diplomacy, long-winded statements become necessary when there is little of substance to convey. The QUAD statement has 2145 words, yet says so little that we already did not know.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: US President Joe Biden at Quad Summit, White House, Sept. 24, 2021. Seated clockwise Australian PM Scott Morrison, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Japanese PM Yoshihide Suga & Indian PM Narendra Modi (Source: Indian Punchline)
In total, more than 30,000 vaccinees reported more than 100,000 adverse reactions to the vaccine by the end of January. Most notable are 13 people who went blind after the vaccination, eight miscarriages and a total of 236 fatal cases, Epoch Times reports.
Ever since WHO mandated worldwide vaxx-certificates – a move directed and funded by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, not by WHO’s member states – the rope is tightening around the necks of those who decide not to go for the experimental not approved gene-therapy jab: They are not allowed in restaurants, or attending any indoor activity, be it sports or cultural events – not even the zoo.
The European Ombudsman has asked EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to explain how she lost the text messages she had exchanged with Pfizer’s CEO during the EU’s vaccine procurement talks.
While watching a hegemonic wanna-be global overlord choke on humble pie is certainly satisfying, and while Afghanistan unquestionably has a renewed hope to recapture its ancient role as a pearl on the Silk Road uniting all cultures of the globe, something darker is also afoot.
The media has failed to remind us that in 2009 Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice.
What I find astounding is that the Western media never mention that for a brief period of time Afghanistan once had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support.
This international opposition reflects an obvious truth that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear arms race or new Cold War. AUKUS is a major new military alliance that makes Australia the key US ally in the region.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to allow for a single booster shot to be administered to people 65 and older.
In a new interview, he is very clear on his expert view of the untested vaccinations that are being pushed world wide without proper trials: It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this vaccination.
The Australian government database for adverse reactions tracks 78 different vaccines for the past 20 years, with a total of 47 deaths following vaccination during the years 2000 through 2020.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
If you think elementary, middle, and high school students know too little history, geography, and government, try asking them about the corporations that command so many hours of their day, their attention, what they consume, and their personal horizons.
Howard Zinn published A Young People’s History of the United States (2009), to go with his best-selling pioneering work, A People’s History of the United States (1980), but he didn’t do justice to all the modern corporate controls of just about every facet of American life, including educational institutions.
Today, school children are engulfed by corporate apps and software, textbooks biased toward the corporate definitions of an economy, and myths about “free markets.” For years free school materials and videos produced or sponsored by business groups, including the coal and nuclear industries, have flooded elementary classes. Our report: Hucksters in the Classroom: A Review of Industry Propaganda in Schools by Sheila Harty (1979), documented this mercantile assault on education. Students even take tests designed by corporate institutions.
Eleven-year-olds have asked me “What is a corporation?” Teenagers ask, “What’s corporate crime?” or “What’s a company union?” These are the same youngsters who click on the handcuffing fine-print contracts of internet companies that own social media apps such as Instagram and TikTok. These are the same youngsters who are lied to daily by corporations about harmful junk foods and drugs, and whose parents overwhelmingly work in anti-union offices and factories.
Forget about students knowing or learning about “The Commons,” although they listen to music broadcast on the public airwaves and probably have visited a national park. (For more on The Commons see: Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons by David Bollier). Students haven’t studied “corporate welfare,” even though taxpaying parents subsidize these government giveaways, handouts, and bailouts to demanding, mismanaged, or criminal corporations with power.
Schools forever have separated students from giant slices of reality – historical and contemporary. Much of this ignored or distorted reality shapes present conditions, such as the various controls of the many by the few. But today’s corporate plutocracy is at a different level of penetration altogether. Shucking past taboos, corporate marketeers hard sell directly to children bypassing or undermining parental authority. What they sell is obesity, diabetes, promiscuity, dangerous addictions and violence in their merciless “entertainment programs” and narratives about armed force, however illegal it may be.
In terms of sheer time, range of exposure, and planned peer group pressures, corporations are raising our children day and night. Big companies do strategic planning about everything affecting our children. There are no longer adequate limits and boundaries on corporatism or protections of commercial-free zones.
It’s getting worse. Eyewear for “augmented reality” from Facebook and rapidly expanding “artificial intelligence” induce dependency and more sedentary living. People from Bill Joy to Stephen Hawking to Elon Musk have strongly warned about these emerging technologies and the consequential loss of freedom and democracy.
I’d like to invite some open-minded educators to consider a six-hour curricula for late middle school through high school students on the modern global corporation. Hour One could be called “Big Corporations are Different from You and Me” illuminating this fast-dominating “artificial person” with all the rights of real humans yet structurally escaping from responsibility, a status of “privileges and immunities” under corporate law[lessness].
Hour Two could be devoted to the history of corporate power so heavily characterized by the costs of their amassing wealth – costs to workers, communities, small businesses, voters, consumers, patients, our governing ways, and, yes, students. Having been told repeatedly about how companies “built America,” students should learn about all the “NOs.” Corporations were operationally entrenched against the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, union organizing, the minimum wage, universal health insurance, early solar energy, mass transit, public campaign financing, and governmental institutions accountable to the citizenry. The most recent big “NOs” are against consumer, labor, and environmental justice and, of course, waging peace instead of forever wars of mayhem and profit have filled volumes of documentation.
Hour Three might run students through all the attempts and reforms by the American people to reign in the destructive, unjust excesses of large companies and their controlling ideology of corporatism. What were the results from all those widespread protests, regulatory actions, prosecutions, and electoral reforms? What are the successes of the peace movement, environmental groups and initiatives by workers, consumers, creators, and defenders of The Commons, (such as the public lands and public airwaves), investors and savers for justice and the common good? What happened to the corporate tax system, the drive for shareholder rights and corporate democracy and, most importantly, the rule of law over corporate power?
Hour Four, Hour Five, and Hour Six – well, to be continued. That is, if we hear from people interested enough in having this proposal described further.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Despite branding itself as a “people’s summit,” the 2021 United Nations Food Systems gathering prioritized the perspectives and interests of large corporations, shut out small producers, and peddled sham solutions to the intensifying global crises of hunger and climate change.
That’s the view of an international coalition of food sovereignty advocates, which on Saturday issued a statement blasting the U.N. Food Systems Summit (FSS) for “paving the way for greater control of big corporations over global food systems and misleading the people through corporate-led false solutions.”
“The U.N. FSS did not listen to the voices of marginalized rural peoples, nor forward real solutions to the food, biodiversity, and climate crises,” said Sylvia Mallari, global co-chairperson of the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty. “Instead, it let powerful nations and big corporations play an even bigger role in determining food and agricultural policies.”
“The U.N. has finally made it clear what ‘multilateralism’ is all about—paying lip service to the people while skewing priorities for the interests of imperialists and monopoly capitalists,” Mallari added.
In the months leading up to the FSS—which took place during the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week—food justice campaigners repeatedly warned that the event had been “hijacked” by big businesses and wealthy private donors, including Nestlé and the Gates Foundation.
Following the event, advocates argued their warnings were justified, pointing specifically to a number of statements and pledges made during the FSS to spotlight its corporate-friendly nature and exclusion of small food producers from its proposed solutions:
U.S. President Joe Biden said that Washington would spend $10 billion to “end hunger and invest in food systems at home and abroad,” half of which will go to the USAID’s Feed the Future initiative in various countries. This includes a “large-scale food fortification” program in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Through its co-founder Melinda Gates, the BMGF, which has been heavily criticized for its role in pushing for destructive Green Revolution technologies and seed privatization that favor big agribusinesses, also addressed the U.N. FSS and announced a $922 million commitment to food fortification. Biofortification promotes industrial monocultures over agroecological food diversity, and ushers in the next generation of genetically-modified crops, such as the Gates-funded Vitamin-A “Golden Rice” recently approved for commercial use in the Philippines.
Additionally, the U.S. Feed the Future initiative works with US businesses such as Cargill, Pepsico, Corteva Agriscience, the Coca-Cola Company, Mars Inc, Unilever, John Deere, etc. to supposedly “fight global hunger.” In 2020, $1.2 million Feed the Future funds to help “combat the economic toll of Covid-19” went to “private sector partners” in Africa—these include agrochemical, fruit export, and microfinance companies—instead of small farmers most affected by the pandemic.
In his speech to the UN FSS, World Bank president David Malpass cited increased financing for “climate-smart” agriculture. “Climate-smart” agriculture is the euphemism used by agrochemical and seed companies for proprietary techno-fixes such as GM crops. The U.S. and United Arab Emirates also advanced the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate), which aims to increase public and private investment in “climate-smart agriculture and food systems innovation” at the UNFSS, with the BMGF expressing its support.
World Bank’s Malpass also mentioned “moving away from policies that favor rice and other staples over fruit and vegetables,” which, for the Global South means intensified neoliberal policies that facilitate grabbing of farmers’ land planted with staple food in favor of export-oriented plantations.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) director general Qu Dongyu talked about targeted interventions for digital and “technologically advanced” innovations, and failed to mention support for agroecological approaches. For “accelerating the transformation of agri-food systems at country level,” the FAO will use its Hand-In-Hand Initiative—an “innovative business model” which creates “matchmaking” opportunities between partners and recipient countries in the Global South. Partners include the private sector, even the agrochemical giant Syngenta.
Hardly a fringe assessment of the FSS, the food sovereignty coalition’s critique of the summit was echoed by Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food.
“The summit is being led by scientists and research institutes who are pro-corporate sector,” Fakhri said in an interview with The Guardian. “People say, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s see if it is the ‘people’s summit’ it is claiming to be. But they have failed in what they had set out to do. It is not the people’s summit. It is elitist.”
Fakhri added that while corporations may not have played a direct role “in the day-to-day operations of the summit,” the “leadership picked comes from organizations that believe corporations are part of the solution.”
As The Guardian noted, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ “choice of Agnes Kalibata, the former Rwandan minister for agriculture, to lead the summit was met with protests last year, given her role as president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), which has been accused of promoting damaging, business-focused practices.”
In an effort to counter the business-dominated U.N. event, thousands of rural farmers, civil society organizations, and food sovereignty advocates convened their own Global People’s Summit (GPS) on Food Systems, which aimed to “expose and oppose the control of big corporations over food and agriculture the corporate capture of the U.N.”
At the close of the three-day GPS, which consisted of virtual events and on-the-ground protests, participants adopted a “People’s Declaration” that decried “a pandemic of systemic and perpetual hunger being perpetrated by big business through the globalized food economy—a system characterized by unsustainable monoculture production, environmental plunder, and waste; as well as wars and conflicts fueled by imperialist competition for resources, land, and markets.” Attendees also resolved to carry out “People’s Action Plans” devised at GPS workshops and public forums.
“We believe that an equitable food system can only be built on the people’s right to land and livelihoods, and to decent working and living conditions for all,” the declaration reads. “This means that food production must be decided by the sovereign will of the people, based on their particular circumstances, priorities, and needs. Profit motives of corporations—euphemistically called market forces—should not determine what food to produce, how to produce it, and for whom.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The way things were in the US/West long ago no longer exists.
State-sponsored 9/11 was a game-changer, the mother of all false flags until way-surpassed by deceptively giving garden variety flu a scary new name.
What followed was unjustifiably justified by an invented SARS-CoV-2 virus that was never isolated in lab analysis and doesn’t exist.
The same goes for long ago Boston. The way it was when I grew up also no longer exists.
It was a time when inner city school teachers taught, students learned, and classroom decorum was conducive to learning.
The way things were let ordinary kids like himself, with nothing special going for them, advance to higher education and benefits it brought at the time — that no longer exist for most youths in the US today, nor in the West overall.
Back then, higher education was affordable for virtually anyone, the will to successfully complete academic studies the only requirement.
Attending today in the US entraps millions of students in debt bondage because of exorbitantly higher education costs — at a time when career opportunities are a shadow of what they were post-WW II in the late 40s, 50s and 60s.
New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs helped millions of Americans avoid poverty — social programs that worked, greatly eroded and heading toward disappearing altogether today.
The post-WW II Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill) provided college or vocational education for 7.8 million returning vets.
Another 2.4 million got VA-backed low-interest, no down payment home loans at a time when their average cost was around $5,000 — letting millions of families afford them.
Strong unions and high-paying factory jobs with good benefits elevated millions of Americans to middle-class status, what’s fast disappearing today.
The economy then grew most years at around 3.5%.
Through the 1960s, blue-collar workers were the biggest buyers of many luxury goods and services, including homes and autos.
What once was back then is a distant memory today.
My hometown Boston’s dismal state is replicated nationwide.
Protracted depression conditions exist for most working-age Americans.
Based on how economic data were calculated pre-1990, unemployment today is 25.4% — not the phony lowball 5.2%.
CPI inflation is 13.2%, not the officially reported 5.4% — nor reported 4% excluding food and energy.
Everyone who eats, drives a car, pays rent or services a mortgage, has medical bills, heats and/or air conditions living space, and has kids in college knows more about inflation than talking head TV economists paid to deceive, not inform viewers.
After all things flu/covid obliterated what remained of things as they were when I grew up long ago, tyranny became the law of the land.
Most Americans were mind-manipulated to go along with what harms their health and fundamental rights — on the phony pretext of what protects them.
Jabs and health passports — digital or otherwise — are symbols of modern-day tyranny.
Along with all else flu/covid related, they transformed the US/West more than ever into societies unsafe and unfit to live in.
On September 24, my hometown Boston Globe deceptively claimed that flu/covid “passports are the ticket back to normal (sic).”
What the Globe considers “normal” is hugely abnormal by any definition of normality. See below.
As a boy and adolescent, my favorite entertainment was attending a Red Sox game at Boston’s Fenway Park — when the league’s biggest stars were Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio.
As an older teenager and youth through college, it was attending Boston Pops concerts at Symphony Hall during its golden age under conductor Arthur Fiedler.
The only constraint to attending was the admission price when Fenway Park bleacher tickets cost 60 cents and unreserved Symphony Hall second balcony seats were practically free at 50 cents, including ones overlooking the stage and podium where I and friends usually sat by showing up early to get them.
What I remember fondly was replaced with the following:
Red Sox attendance requires compliance with so-called “health and safety” rules unrelated to either.
Fans may not carry bags to the ballpark, except for medical devices or diapers.
Masks are required beneath the stands at refreshment locations, other facilities and restrooms.
Unjabbed fans must where masks that don’t protect at all times everywhere inside Fenway Park.
For the upcoming basketball and hockey seasons, proof of having been fully jabbed or gotten a meaningless negative PCR test result is required for attendance.
The Globe noted that verifying the above for thousands of ticket-holders won’t “be a piece of cake” for checkers.
The same goes for fans forced to put up with what no one should tolerate.
Defying science, the Globe falsely claimed that the above practice is “doing the right thing (sic),” adding:
“And it certainly isn’t alone among sports and performance venues around the state.”
Attending Boston Symphony or Pops concerts is worlds apart from my fond memories.
Proof of being toxic-jabbed or a negative PCR test proving nothing is required for entry into Symphony Hall.
The same goes for virtually all theaters and entertainment venues in the city.
The price of admission includes having sacrificed health and well-being.
Proving it should for access to most other public places throughout the city and state should be required, according to the Globe, saying:
“(I)t behooves the public sector to make the job of checking the authenticity of those (jabs) easier.”
“And that means some form of uniform (jab) ‘passport’ — a QR code, a chip, some kind of digital proof that the bearer has indeed gotten the requisite number of shots.”
According to the Globe, Massachusetts “has fallen behind the curve (sic),” adding:
Yet Governor Charlie Baker said he’s exploring the notion of mandating health passports statewide.
“Getting to the point where there’s a relatively simple process for people to credential the fact that they’ve been (fully jabbed) will be important for a whole bunch of reasons,” he falsely claimed.
The draconian practice is mandated in New York and California, notably in Israel as well.
Children’s Hospital in Boston (rated the nation’s best) developed a so-called SMART Health Card.
The Globe called on Governor Baker to show “leadership on this issue (sic).”
If digital and/or other health passports are mandated for access to most public places, the city and state I grew up in long ago will become more unfit to live in than already.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
