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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Summary

On Monday, August 30, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to approve a recommendation that stated:

The Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is recommended for people 16 years of age and older under FDA’s Biologics License Application (BLA) approval

This recommendation was quickly endorsed by CDC Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky.

• In approving this recommendation, ACIP heard evidence from Pfizer, Kaiser Permanente, CDC, and other scientists on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.
• Apparently fully or partially absent from this evidence were six studies, cited in a post-vote presentation. These studies, including those by CDC and Pfizer scientists, describe waning vaccine effectiveness, or effectiveness against the delta strain, from the 90-95% range to, in one case to as low as 42%.
• The inclusion of these missing studies would have yielded a different risk-benefit analysis.
• Given the ramifications this recommendation is already having on vaccine mandate policy, the evidence presented to ACIP does not appear to meet the highest level of standards for scientific integrity and conduct.
• Other intense safety signals, such as a 177 times increase in the number of deaths per vaccinated person reported for Covid-19 vaccines, compared with flu vaccines, were not considered.
• ACIP did not consider the possible effects of the vaccines on pregnancy or the reproductive system, hinted at by the announcement the same day by NIH, to fund studies on the links between the Covid-19 vaccines and menstrual disorders.
• ACIP did not consider other possible long-term effects (cancer, autoimmune disease) of the vaccines related to their falling under the FDA classification of a “gene therapy product,” and made no comment about the lack of studies performed by Pfizer/BioNTech “for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility.”
• The significant short and potentially long-term cardiac, vascular, hematological, musculoskeletal, intestinal, respiratory or neurologic symptoms health issues stemming from the use of these vaccines pose a major and expensive public health problem.To concretize recognition of, and to spur action to avert and confront this potential public health crisis, we have proposed the term:

Post Covid Vaccine Syndrome – pCoVS

• There needs to be:
  • Assignment of ICD10 and related tracking or reimbursement codes for pCoVS.
  • Funding for research and tracking for long-term and delayed pCoVS.
  • Regulation of the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines as Gene Therapy products, requiring long-term follow-up.
• Since FDA and CDC cannot assure us about the safety of two vaccine doses, how can they give any assurance about a third (or more doses)?

Introduction

On Monday, August 30, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to approve a recommendation that stated:

The Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is recommended for people 16 years of age and older under FDA’s Biologics License Application (BLA) approval

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), endorsed this recommendation,^[1] adding

“We now have a fully approved COVID-19 vaccine and ACIP has added its recommendation. If you have been waiting for this approval before getting the vaccine, now is the time to get vaccinated and join the more than 173 million Americans who are already fully vaccinated,”

Once the recommendation is published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), this statement will “represent the official CDC recommendations for immunizations in the United States.”^[2]

Within the fine print of the evidence presented to ACIP prior to its vote, are details that suggest that the vote may have been influenced by possible scientific misconduct.

What happened? Who was voting and why?

Unlike FDA, whose mission is to ensure that medical products can only be marketed if they are safe and effective, CDC^[3] “conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation…” Advising the CDC are specialist and expert committees such as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) composed of non-government scientists, doctors, health professionals, and community representatives.

ACIP was asked by CDC to formulate a recommendation regarding the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. To inform ACIP’s decision, scientists and doctors from Pfizer BioNTech and CDC provided evidence concerning the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness as well as a risk-benefit analysis.

I along with colleagues, submitted  pre- and post-meeting comments,(1,2) some of which are included in this article.

How safe is the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine?

The safety discussion drew from several of the systems used to monitor vaccine safety shown on slide 4 from the presentation of Dr. Grace Lee, the chairperson of ACIP.

Focus on myocarditis

The safety discussion focused on myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), particularly in younger subjects. One CDC presentation^[4] cited a study published in NEJM (3) reporting a 3 times higher risk of myocarditis associated with Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination, compared with an 18 times higher risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In other words, a 18/3 = 6 times greater risk of myocarditis if you get Covid-19 than if you have the vaccine. This figure of 6 agreed with a non-peer-reviewed preprint study looking at mRNA vaccines(4) (two other CDC studies showing higher numbers were cited, but these studies have not been published – remember that – and only available to CDC internally). This is a six-fold increase IF contracting Covid. What the presentation did not say is that this is canceled out by the (at best) 1 in 8 chance of getting Covid-19 in the first place!

Slide 9 from presentation by Dr. Rosenblum (footnote 4)

Deaths and myocardial infarctions missing from safety discussion

What else was not mentioned? In written comments my colleagues and I (1) submitted to ACIP prior to the meeting, we compared the number of reports in VAERS for either death or myocardial infarction (heart attack) associated with the Covid-19 and flu vaccines. Adjusting for the number of doses given. There were 91 times more deaths and 126 times more heart attacks for the Covid-19 vaccines compared with the flu vaccines. If adjusted by the number of people receiving at least one dose, the figure for deaths is about 177 (July 30 figures).

This does not PROVE that the vaccines were the cause of these events. But that’s not the point. This is called a signal. It is a very intense one and awaits a transparent explanation^[5] that includes a comprehensive report of the types and numbers of investigations performed, including autopsies. Although CDC has provided guidance for the conduct of autopsies of Covid-19 cases, there is no prospective protocol for the conduct of autopsies to determine whether or not the death is vaccine-related. This would include a detailed description of the types of histopathological methods to distinguish vaccine-induced spike protein from spike protein derived from a Covid-19 infection. Where is this analysis? Where is there a protocol? Similarly, the strong signal of heart attacks in younger than in older people (403 vs. 88, Table 1) must be investigated.

In our submitted comments,(1) we identified three separate pools of vaccine-associated deaths, totaling 45,000-147,000 deaths that should be viewed in the context of the upper estimate of 140,000 lives saved due to the vaccines (to May 2021).(5)

• Non Covid-19 deaths under-reported in VAERS – 20,400-62,500
• Covid-19 deaths in vaccinated subjects – 25,000-85,000
• An unknown number of deaths in non-vaccinated contributed by transmission from vaccinated people.

It is important to distinguish between these three pools, as each may have separate sets of causes. In the first pool early, non-Covid-related deaths may be related to the toxicity of the spike protein towards heart cells and effects on coagulation. Covid-related deaths may have resulted from post-vaccination immune suppression, possibly hinted at by a 40% -vaccine-associated increase in Herpes zoster infections reported in a large Israeli study(3) and referenced in one of the CDC presentations to ACIP.^[6] Covid-19 may have been unwittingly transmitted by vaccinees to the non-vaccinated(6,7), including by fecal aerosol(8) in subjects sharing bathrooms.

The Precautionary Principle places the burden of proof on CDC to convincingly rule out an association between these events and the Covid-19 vaccines.

Table 1: Signals of deaths or myocardial infarctions reported in VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines compared with Flu Vaccines

The number shown is the ratio of the number of VAERS reports (per dose) for the Covid-19 vaccines in comparison with the Flu vaccines (2015/16-2019/20 flu seasons) for each age group. Covid-19 reporting rates include all reports to VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines as of Aug. 6, 2021. n.e not estimable. Excerpted from (1).

Critics of these sorts of analyses have claimed there may have been overreporting related to enhanced reporting requirements pursuant to Emergency Use Authorization.^[7] A number of the CDC presentations referenced data from VAERS without expressing any such concern. Indeed, the point was made in one presentation, that for myocarditis/ pericarditis at least, the VAERS and VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink^[8]) incidence data, agreed closely.

This similarity was not sufficient to generate a safety signal (age unstratified) for myocarditis^[9] within the VSD system which uses a signal detection method called Rapid Cycle Analysis (RCA). Although in theory, RCA should be able to detect signals in near real-time as medical records are being generated in a system such as Kaiser Permanente, the method appears even less sensitive than the methods prescribed for VAERS(9) which themselves have known limitations.(1)  From VAERS, myocarditis is acknowledged to be an issue as a warning in the COMIRNATY package insert attests: (10)

“Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose.”

A paper was published in JAMA (11)  on September 3^rd describing the findings from the Rapid Cycle Analysis of the VSD system. It concluded that:

“incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination.”

I suggest that publication of this paper without the context of the acknowledged myocarditis signals from VAERS, within the conclusion, is highly misleading.

Long term harms missing from safety discussion: gene therapy products, cancer

Also missing from the discussion were potential long-term effects of these vaccines, given that they also meet FDA’s definition for Gene Therapy products. .(12)  Indeed, in 2020 Moderna acknowledged(13) that ”Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.” Why is this important? Because FDA, is (appropriately) concerned for the effects of the gene therapy product on malignant (cancer), neurologic, autoimmune, hematologic, or other disorders. The concern is so great that FDA may require follow-up evaluations of study patients for between 5 and 15 years. When did FDA decide to ignore its own guidance document? (12) ^[10]

The package insert(10) for the vaccine that was approved by the FDA on August 23^rd states that “COMIRNATY has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility.” Neither in the BLA Approval letter,(14) nor in the Summary Basis for Regulatory Approval(15) is there a POST MARKETING REQUIREMENT to conduct studies on carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or male fertility.

Effects on reproductive system missing from safety discussion: menstrual disorders

What else was missing? On the very same day, CDC staff were providing evidence to ACIP on the safety of the Pfizer vaccine, NIH made the startling announcement^[11] that it was funding studies “to explore potential links between COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual changes.” They elaborated: “Some women have reported experiencing irregular or missing menstrual periods, bleeding that is heavier than usual, and other menstrual changes after receiving COVID-19 vaccines.” Was CDC not aware of this?

But the operative word here is “Some.” A query in VAERS (9/3/21) for various menstrual disorders^[12] revealed that for reports associated with the Covid-19 vaccines, “some” means.

7037 separate menstrual disorder-related symptoms were described in 4783 unique reports.

Some? By comparison with all other vaccines, for ALL years COMBINED we have 897 symptoms in 798 unique events. Most of these are accounted for by the HPV vaccines (698 symptoms in 623 events) with seasonal flu vaccines contributing only 47 symptoms within 45 unique events.

Having worked extensively in the area of women’s health for most of my career,^[13] I reluctantly confess that this was not on my radar screen. Concerns had been raised from animal studies showing the distribution of some vaccine components to the ovaries. Some menstrual effects were picked up in another analysis.(16) However, I know that “menstrual disorders” are far too often trivialized. A number of these disorders lead to early hysterectomies triggering further complications including adhesions, pain, bowel obstruction, heart disease, and dementia. Will these sorts of problems be considered in risk-benefit analyses?

NIH illustrates a number of reasons for these reported menstrual changes. No doubt out of an intense desire to be transparent with the American public in disclosing ALL of the possible reasons for these menstrual changes, NIH included in their list “pandemic-related stress.” But stress is not our prime suspect. Effects on the ovaries and uterus are, and we must view these reported menstrual changes in the context of unresolved questions about the safety of the vaccines on the reproductive system in general, and on pregnancy in particular.

Preliminary findings of a CDC study(17) published in June involving 35,691 pregnant v-safe surveillance system participants and 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry (only 827 of whom had a completed pregnancy), “did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.” The study acknowledged that “more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.”

The results of a follow-up report from this CDC study,(17) appeared in NEJM on September 8^th (18), and were surely known at the time of the ACIP meeting. With the startling absence of a randomized control group, the report concluded that:

“our findings suggest that the risk of spontaneous abortion after mRNA Covid-19 vaccination either before conception or during pregnancy is consistent with the expected risk of spontaneous abortion; these findings add to the accumulating evidence about the safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy”

In my opinion, this conclusion overreaches to the point of recklessness as it conflicts with and downplays the guidance provided in the COMIRNATY package insert(10) under a subheading “Risk Summary”:

“Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Not that the package insert, overall is much better at providing clear guidance for pregnancy. It states: “There is a pregnancy exposure registry for COMIRNATY. Encourage individuals exposed to COMIRNATY around the time of conception or during pregnancy to register by visiting this.”

As stated in their approval letter,(14) the best the FDA has done to determine what sorts of risks are posed during pregnancy is to obtain the commitment from BioNTech to conduct a post-marketing pregnancy/neonatal study with a four-year term.

Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”

Note the word commitment. As FDA explains^[14]

“Postmarketing commitments (PMCs) are studies or clinical trials that a sponsor has agreed to conduct, but that are not required by a statute or regulation.”

This is not a requirement (as for some of the other post-marketing studies on myocarditis for example). Compare not only this level of regulation but also the length and scope of the study in question with an unrelated Janssen (J&J) biologic product for which a 7-year^[15] study is required and which includes examining effects on child and early development. A recently approved (2021) Astra-Zeneca biologic product^[16] requires a NINE-year study on pregnancy and maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.

Inadequate risk-benefit analysis

None of this featured in the evidence CDC gave to ACIP. Indeed, the only harm of any note in the risk-benefit analysis (itself focusing on 16–29-year-olds) was myocarditis.^[17]

Slide 16 from presentation by Dr. Rosenblum (footnote 4)

Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome

The sheer number of deaths or other events reported in VAERS for the Covid-19 vaccines (similar to all deaths or events reported for all other vaccines in all years combined) cannot be ignored. The significant short and potentially long-term health issues stemming from the use of these vaccines pose a major and expensive public health problem.To concretize recognition of, and to spur action to avert and confront this potential public health crisis, we have proposed the term:

Post Covid Vaccine Syndrome – pCoVS

defined as:

A syndrome occurring after injection of antigen-inducing, gene therapy vaccines to SARS-Cov-2 virus. The syndrome is currently understood to manifest variously as cardiac, vascular, hematological, musculoskeletal, intestinal, respiratory or neurologic symptoms of unknown long-term significance, in addition to effects on gestation. Manifestations of the syndrome may be mediated by the spike protein antigen induced by the delivered nucleic acids, the nucleic acids themselves, or vaccine adjuvants. As more data become available, subsets and longer-term consequences of pCoVS may become apparent, requiring revision of this definition.

We(1) have proposed:

• Recognition by public health agencies, governments, and professional societies of pCoVS.
• Assignment of ICD10 and related tracking or reimbursement codes for pCoVS.
• Establishment of transparent systems to monitor and track for long-term and delayed pCoVS.
• Establishment of funding for research into the prevention and treatment of pCoVS.
• Regulation of the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines as Gene Therapy products.
• Insistence on long-term (15 years) pharmacovigilance by manufacturers of these vaccines for pCoVS consistent with FDA guidelines for gene therapy products.
• Legislation to prevent discrimination based on vaccination^[18] or actual or potential pCoVS status.
• Establishment of funding to determine what effects the gene therapy vaccines have on the genome or gene expression.

How effective is the Pfizer BioNTech Vaccine

Inclusion of outdated, non-RCT, observational and non-peer-reviewed studies

Contributing significantly to the analysis by several presenters of safety and efficacy, as well as the risk-benefit analysis for the Pfizer vaccine was Pfizer’s own RCT of about 40,000 subjects^[19] which was recently released as a non-peer-reviewed pre-print.(19) It was widely recognized throughout the discussion that these data only reported safety and effectiveness data for up to six months of the Pfizer vaccine, for data collected up to March 13 2021. Does Pfizer have data collected after March 13?

The use of observational or non-peer-reviewed (preprinted) studies by proponents of re-purposed drugs has been heavily criticized by public health officials as well as the media, who have insisted on evidence from large peer-reviewed RCTs. It was with some wonder that observational and non-peer-reviewed studies were included in one of the key analyses (slide 19)^[20] provided to support ACIP’s recommendation, 17 observational studies, including 7 non-peer-reviewed, were employed. During the discussion, the presenter (Dr. Gargano) concurred with one of the discussants that there was good agreement between data from observational and RCT sources. Only one RCT was included¹⁹ with reference to additional about-to-be published (NEJM) study (remember that).^[21]

Of these 17 studies, one reported data with mixed variants, one with the delta variant only, two with the alpha and delta variant and only one with the Delta variant. During this discussion, which preceded ACIP’s vote on recommending the Pfizer vaccine, there was no consideration of the effects of the delta variant or of waning immunity described in a post-vote presentation.^[22]

Why were data describing waning immunity or effectiveness against delta omitted prior to the vote?

Get out your magnifying glass and look at the small print for slide 6.

Slide 6 from presentation by Dr. Gargano (footnote 15)

“Articles were eligible for inclusion if published before 8/20/21”

This sounds perfectly reasonable except when you look at the evidence presented (footnote 14) in a discussion of booster doses, waning immunity, and the Delta variant that took place AFTER ACIP voted to recommend the Pfizer vaccine.

Slide 15 of Dr. Oliver’s presentation shows a waning of vaccine effectiveness to between 40 and 80%.

Slide 15 from presentation of Dr. Oliver (footnote 14)

Why was this waning effectiveness not considered PRIOR to the vote being taken? Surely any recommendation to use the vaccine must take into account prevailing levels of efficacy, regardless of how good it was before? You will answer by saying that CDC needed time to complete their pre-vote analysis, so they had a cutoff date of August 20. Let’s take a look at the four studies shown on this slide.

Nanduri et al. (20) This was a CDC paper showing loss of VE from 74.7% to 53.1% in nursing home residents. The paper was published in CDC’s own journal MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) on August 27. It was not included in the pre-vote evidence for effectiveness because it did not meet the August 20 cut-off. But we saw earlier how unpublished data (including CDC data) had been incorporated into the pre-vote analysis. There is one more problem here. The Nanduri paper states: “On August 18, 2021, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website,” thus meeting the cut-off criteria.

Rosenberg et al., (21) This is another CDC report showing a decline in vaccine effectiveness against infection for New York adults from 91.7% to 79.8%. It was published in MMWR on August 27, with an early release date of August 18.

Puranik et al. (22) This non-peer-reviewed preprint showed a decline to July 2021 in the effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine to 76% and the Pfizer vaccine to 42%. This paper was not authored by CDC staff and was first posted on medrxiv August 8, with revisions posted on August 9 and 21. These revisions showed the same declining effectiveness. This study WAS referenced in the pre-vote presentation by Dr. Gargano (footnote 16), however, the finding of 42% effectiveness against infection does not appear to have been tabulated.

Fowlkes et al. (23) Another CDC paper showed waning immunity from 91% to 66% in front-line workers. This was published in MMWR on August 27, but with an early release date of August 24. Why this was not released on August 18, along with the Nanduri paper is unclear. Another paper by CDC and other authors (24) which showed sustained effectiveness in adults was included in the pre-vote analysis and was published on August 27 in MMWR with an early release date of August 18.

Slide 52 of the same presentation contained a list of 14 references for recent estimates of vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant, including the four papers cited above.

Slide 52 from presentation of Dr. Oliver footnote 14

There were three other papers in this list that also described waning immunity or reduced immunity of the Pfizer vaccine against the Delta variant.

#10. Sheikh et al. (25) The paper itself states that it was published online on June 14, 2021, and stated “Both the Oxford–AstraZeneca and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines were effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization in people with the Delta VOC, but these effects on infection appeared to be diminished when compared to those with the Alpha VOC.”

#13. Tartof et al. (26) This study results were:

“For fully vaccinated individuals, effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections was 73% (95%CI: 72‒74) and against COVID-19-related hospitalizations was 90% (89‒92). Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (86‒89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43‒51) after ≥5 months. Among sequenced infections, VE against Delta was lower compared to VE against other variants (75% [71‒78] vs 91% [88‒92]). VE against Delta infections was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [85‒97]) but declined to 53% [39‒65] at ≥4 months. VE against hospitalization for Delta for all ages was high overall (93%).”

This preprint was posted on August 23, 2021. It was funded by Pfizer and seven of the 15 authors have their affiliation listed as Pfizer.

The study (#7) by Pouwels et al. (6) WAS included in the pre-vote presentation by Dr. Gargano (footnote 16), despite similar publication dates as the above-mentioned non-included papers. This study examined VE in the Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna, and Astra-Zeneca (ChAdOx1) vaccines and concluded: “SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with Delta.”

“Importantly, attenuations in the Delta-dominant period now reached statistical significance for BNT162b2 as well as ChAdOx1 (e.g. Ct<30 VE 14 days post second dose 84% (82-86%) Delta versus 94% (91-96%) Alpha (heterogeneity p<0.0001), and 70% (65-73%) versus 86% (71-93%) respectively for ChAdOx1 (heterogeneity p=0.04)).”

The study was posted as a preprint on medrxiv on August 24. However, as cited by CDC, the study first appeared on the Nuffield Department of Medicine (University of Oxford) website. The file name suggests the date of file to be August 16, 2021. Inspection of the html code for the referenced link reveals the date last modified as Wednesday August 18, 2021.

We see therefore a total of six papers, cited in a presentation AFTER ACIP’s vote, describing waning or reduced immunity against delta appear to have been completely or partially (pertinent part) omitted from the evidence presented (footnote 13) by CDC to ACIP on the benefits and harms of the Pfizer vaccine, PRIOR to its vote on the recommendation. Of these six, four (20-22,25) clearly met the cut-off date for inclusion of August 20. Of these four, one of these (22), WAS referenced in the pre-vote presentation by Dr. Gargano (footnote 16), however, the finding of 42% effectiveness against infection does not appear to have been tabulated.

One study (23) was published as an early release in MMWR on Aug 24, by CDC staff. Another study (26) was posted on August 23 and was funded by Pfizer and included Pfizer scientists. Given the inclusion in the pre-vote CDC presentation (footnote 13) of unpublished data, (footnote 14) despite not meeting the Aug 20 cut-off date, as well as the inclusion of unpublished CDC data in earlier evidence presented (footnote 4) to ACIP, it is difficult to justify why these two studies were omitted from the pre-vote evidence. The apparent omission of a study funded by Pfizer funded (which included as authors Pfizer scientists) (26) from the evidence presented by the Pfizer representative (footnote 12) requires explanation.

Lastly, the August 20 cut-off date for including studies in the evidence (footnote 13) presented immediately before ACIP’s vote appears arbitrary, given their inclusion in the evidence presented after the vote (footnote 15).

How would the inclusion of data showing lower levels of vaccine effectiveness change the risk-benefit analysis?

Once vaccine effectiveness falls from the 90-95% range towards and below 50% any risk-benefit analysis would change greatly, placing these vaccines in close competition with repurposed drugs with far fewer safety concerns, and effectiveness under different scenarios of 30-60% [hydroxychloroquine; (27-29) ivermectin; (30,31) fluvoxamine; (32) Zinc/Vitamin D/other Vitamins (33,34) ]. Options are running out as we race towards authorizing a booster dose. FDA, NIH, and CDC, in appearing to endorse the recent surge in media attacks on repurposed drugs, particularly ivermectin, may have backed themselves into a corner. At the same time, Pfizer has announced that the first patient in their phase 2/3 study received a dose of their proprietary PF-07321332 – a drug intended to treat “non-hospitalized, symptomatic adult participants who have a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and are not at increased risk of progressing to severe illness, which may lead to hospitalization or death.” (35)

If plan A is to rely on the vaccines, and the post hoc plan B to rely on booster doses, is plan C to wait another year for the arrival of PF-07321332?

Booster Doses

The post-vote discussion on booster doses from Dr. Oliver (footnote 14) focused mainly only on existing data on waning immunity and reduced effectiveness against delta. The discussants recognized the challenges in producing reliable data that could support the use of booster doses and a plan was outlined to be able to obtain data that could support an ACIP recommendation for booster doses following a planned approval by FDA mid- September. It is unclear what data currently exist or would even be available by that time.

Dr. Oliver certainly stated that it was important to determine both the safety and effectiveness of the booster doses.

Slide 29 from presentation of Dr. Oliver (footnote 14)

The use of the term “booster” was questioned and suggested to have less positive connotations than positioning the “third dose” as merely one in a series of a planned course of immunizations, similar to that used for other kinds of vaccines. This has clearly not been the case with the Covid-19 vaccines. Had this been planned, then provision could have been made within the pivotal trials to study the effects of boosters. This is all but precluded now with the substantive loss of blinding in those studies. (36)

Any assessment of safety for third doses must be considered alongside the significant short- and long-term safety questions that remain after two doses.

As for the effectiveness of the third dose, there are few data now emerging. One recent study(37) did suggest that waning or reduced immunity can be restored with a booster dose, but this is only partial, and is at best, according to the study, temporary.

Why was it necessary for ACIP to issue this recommendation?

Extensive discussion preceded the vote based on a presentation: “Evidence to Recommendations Framework: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine”.^[23] One primary concern of that discussion was the issue of vaccine hesitancy. In one survey unvaccinated people were asked:

“Would you be more likely to get vaccinated if one of the vaccines currently authorized for emergency use received full approval from the FDA” (emphasis added)

Of these, “31% of unvaccinated respondents said they would be more likely to get vaccinated after full FDA vaccine approval,” meaning – OF ANY OF THE VACCINES.

This provides the possible rationale for the FDA’s puzzling approval of a vaccine that does not exist. CDC took this to the next step, inferring that not only would FDA approval of ANY of the vaccines be necessary to overcome at least 31% of vaccine hesitancy but that a CDC/ACIP recommendation would also be required.

Slides 37 and 43 from presentation by Dr. Dooling (footnote 18)

Accordingly, it was felt that a recommendation from ACIP, such as the one approved, along with full FDA approval (i.e. BLA) for at least one of the vaccines, would be a significant step in reducing vaccine hesitancy. Presumably, this rationale prevailed at FDA when they puzzlingly issued to BioNTech (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) the BLA for a vaccine (COMIRNATY) on August 23 that was not yet available in the USA.

ACIPs recommendation is even more puzzling. Its wording takes no account of the legal reality of there being two legally distinct vaccines as the FDA explains [footnote 8 in (38)]. For this legal distinction to have any meaning, there would need to exist the ability in VAERS to report and track separately the two legally distinct vaccines. We should expect to see under the list of manufacturers both BioNnTech and Pfizer/BioNTech. We do not (9/6/21). The wording of the recommendation is therefore misleading to the point of being meaningless because on the one hand it speaks about the “Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine”(still under EUA) and on the other hand it speaks of BLA approval (COMIRNATY COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).

Did scientific misconduct occur?

We pointed out at the outset of this paper, the CDC endorsement of ACIP’s recommendation, once published in MMWRwill “represent the official CDC recommendations for immunizations in the United States.”^[24] CDC’s endorsement is already having enormous ramifications as to public policy on vaccine mandates and testing. Accordingly, the evidence presented to ACIP by Pfizer and CDC scientists must meet the highest level of standards for scientific integrity and conduct. The inclusion of key studies evincing lowered effectiveness from the 90-95% range to as low as 42%, would surely have resulted in a different risk-benefit analysis. Is this not akin to the withholding of evidence by lawyers in a trial?

“Scientific misconduct” is defined by CDC ^[25]

“Under applicable federal regulations found at 42 CFR Part 93 [subpart 103 see ^[26] (39)], research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or authorship disputes.” (emphasis added)

I will leave it to the ethicists and lawyers to determine whether or not what happened on August 30 violated any laws, regulations, or codes of ethics. I can only hope that the discrepancies noted in this article are the result of the demands imposed by pandemic conditions that impair the diligence of otherwise well-intentioned people. If that is the explanation, then matters must still be corrected. Uncorrected, for me, none of this passes the smell test. Has Covid has caused everyone to lose their sense of smell.

*

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

1. Wiseman D, Guetzkow, J,, Seligmann H. Comment submitted to August 30 2021 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Centers for Disease Control). Docket CDC-2021-0089-0023. 2021 Aug 29. at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CDC-2021-0089-0023.)

2. Wiseman D. Follow up Comment submitted to August 30 2021 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Centers for Disease Control). Docket CDC-2021-0089-0039. 2021 Aug 30. at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CDC-2021-0089-0039.)

3. Barda N, Dagan N, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. N Engl J Med 2021. Epub 2021/08/26 http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

4. Singer ME, Taub IB, Kaelber DC. Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis. medRxiv 2021:2021.07.23.21260998. Epub Jul 27 http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998

5. Gupta S, Cantor J, Simon KI, et al. Vaccinations Against COVID-19 May Have Averted Up To 140,000 Deaths In The United States. Health affairs (Project Hope) 2021:101377hlthaff202100619. Epub 2021/08/19 http://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00619

6. Pouwels KB, Pritchard E, Matthews P, et al. Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK. medRxiv 2021:2021.08.18.21262237. Epub Aug 24 http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.18.21262237

7. Chau NVVN, Nghiem My; Nguyet, Lam Anh; et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam. . Alncet Preprints 2021. Epub Aug 10 http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3897733

8. Kang M, Wei J, Yuan J, et al. Probable Evidence of Fecal Aerosol Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a High-Rise Building. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173:974-80. Epub 2020/09/02 http://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0928

9. VAERS. Immunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19. 2021 Jan 29. at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/VAERS-v2-SOP.pdf.)

10. FDA. Package Insert for COMIRNATY. 2021 Aug 23. at https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download.)

11. Klein NP, Lewis N, Goddard K, et al. Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination. JAMA 2021. Epub Sep 3 http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.15072

12. FDA. Food and Drug Administration. Long Term Follow-up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products. Guidance for Industry. FDA-2018-D-2173. 2020. (Accessed July 13, 2021, at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/long-term-follow-after-administration-human-gene-therapy-products

https://www.fda.gov/media/113768/download.)

13. Moderna. QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. 2020 Aug 6. (Accessed July 22, 2021, at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm.)

14. FDA. BLA Approval for BioNtech COMIRNATY Vaccine. 2021. (Accessed Aug 23, 2021, at https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download.)

15. FDA. Summary Basis for Regulatory Action: COMIRNATY. 2021 Aug 23. (Accessed 2021, Aug 25, at https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download.)

16. Cotton C. VAERS DATA ANALYSIS. 2021 Jul 23. (Accessed Aug 17, 2021, at https://www.francesoir.fr/sites/francesoir/files/fs_vaers_data_analysis_report-2021-08-08.pdf.)

17. Shimabukuro TT, Kim SY, Myers TR, et al. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:2273-82. Epub 2021/04/22 http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

18. Zauche LH, Wallace B, Smoots AN, et al. Receipt of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines and Risk of Spontaneous Abortion. New England Journal of Medicine 2021. Epub Sep 8 http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2113891

19. Thomas SJ, Moreira ED, Kitchin N, et al. Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. medRxiv 2021:2021.07.28.21261159. Epub Jul 28 http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159

20. Nanduri S, Pilishvili T, Derado G, et al. Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Nursing Home Residents Before and During Widespread Circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant – National Healthcare Safety Network, March 1-August 1, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1163-6. Epub 2021/08/27 http://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7034e3

21. Rosenberg ES, Holtgrave DR, Dorabawila V, et al. New COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Among Adults, by Vaccination Status – New York, May 3-July 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1150-5. Epub 2021/08/27 http://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7034e1

22. Puranik A, Lenehan PJ, Silvert E, et al. Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence. medRxiv 2021. Epub 2021/08/18 http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707

23. Fowlkes A, Gaglani M, Groover K, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Frontline Workers Before and During B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant Predominance – Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020-August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1167-9. Epub 2021/08/27 http://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7034e4

24. Tenforde MW, Self WH, Naioti EA, et al. Sustained Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Associated Hospitalizations Among Adults – United States, March-July 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1156-62. Epub 2021/08/27 http://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7034e2

25. Sheikh A, McMenamin J, Taylor B, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness. Lancet 2021; 397:2461-2. Epub 2021/06/18 http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1

26. Tartof SY, Slezak, Jeff M. , Fischer, Heidi, Hong, Vennis, Ackerson, Bradley K., Ranasinghe, Omesh N., Frankland, Timothy B., Ogun, Oluwaseye A., Zamparo, Joann M., Gray, Sharon, Valluri, Srinivas R., Pan, Kaijie, Angulo, Frederick J., Jodar, Luis, McLaughlin, John M., . Six-Month Effectiveness of BNT162B2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Large US Integrated Health System: A Retrospective Cohort Study. . SSRN 2021. Epub Aug 23 http://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3909743

27. Dinesh B, J CS, Kaur CP, et al. Hydroxychloroquine for SARS CoV2 Prophylaxis in Healthcare Workers – A Multicentric Cohort Study Assessing Effectiveness and Safety. J Assoc Physicians India 2021; 69:11-2. Epub 2021/09/03

28. Wiseman D. Missing data and flawed analyses reverse or challenge findings of three key studies cited in Covid-19 Guidelines: Guideline revision warranted for PEP and PrEP use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Letter to NIH Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. 2020 31 Dec. at https://osf.io/7trh4/.)

29. Wiseman DM, Kory P, Saidi SA, Mazzucco D. Effective post-exposure prophylaxis of Covid-19 is associated with use of hydroxychloroquine: Prospective re-analysis of a public dataset incorporating novel data. medRxiv 2021:2020.11.29.20235218. Epub July 5 http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.29.20235218

30. Wiseman D, Kory, P. Possible clustering and/or drug switching confounding obscures up to 56% reduction of symptom persistence by ivermectin. Data Summary for comment posted to JAMA re: Lopez-Medina et al. OSF Preprints 2021. Epub April 7 http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bvznd

31. Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, et al. Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines. American journal of therapeutics 2021. Epub June 17 http://doi.org/DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001442

32. Together, Reis G, Silva E, et al. Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalization among patients with covid-19: the Together randomized platform clinical trial. medRxiv 2021:2021.08.19.21262323. Epub  http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262323

33. Hazan S, Dave S, Gunaratne AW, et al. Effectiveness of Ivermectin-Based Multidrug Therapy in Severe Hypoxic Ambulatory COVID-19 Patients. medRxiv 2021:2021.07.06.21259924. Epub July 7 http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.06.21259924

34. Procter MDBC, Aprn FNPCCRMSN, Pa-C MVP, et al. Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science 2021; 6:219 – 21. Epub  http://doi.org/10.23958/ijirms/vol06-i03/1100

35. Pfizer. First Participant Dosed in Phase 2/3 Study of Oral Antiviral Candidate in Non-Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 Who Are at Low Risk of Severe Illness. 2021 Sept 1. (Accessed Sep 9, 2021, at https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2021-09/First_Participant_Dosed_in_Phase_2_3.pdf.)

36. Doshi P. Covid-19 vaccines: In the rush for regulatory approval, do we need more data? BMJ 2021; 373:n1244. Epub 2021/05/20 http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1244

37. Levine-Tiefenbrun M, Yelin I, Alapi H, et al. Viral loads of Delta-variant SARS-CoV2 breakthrough infections following vaccination and booster with the BNT162b2 vaccine. medRxiv 2021:2021.08.29.21262798. Epub Sep 1 http://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.29.21262798

38. FDA. Letter to Pfizer – Vaccine Approval. 2021 Aug 23. (Accessed Aug 23, 2021, at https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download.)

39. Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (Accessed Sept 1, 2021, at ttps://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-42/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-93.)

Notes

[1] www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0830-pfizer-vote.html

[2] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/role-vaccine-recommendations.html

[3] www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm

[4] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/06-COVID-Rosenblum-508.pdf

[5] As far as we can tell, the only statement regarding these deaths appears on CDC’s web site (9/2/21) “Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,218 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.” (their emphasis)

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

[6] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/05-COVID-Lee-508.pdf

[7] With about 2/3 of the US population vaccinated, we would expect about 5000 per deaths to occur every day from non-Covid-19 causes. Using a conservative 30-day follow up, we would expect to see 150,000 deaths reported in VAERS. As of 8/29/21, 6128 deaths (USA, territories and unknown) have been reported in connection with Covid-19 vaccines (4805 deaths 50 States and Washington DC). The system does not appear to be functioning as designed.

[8] This is another safety monitoring system used by CDC in collaboration with Kaiser Permanente.

[9] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/04-COVID-Klein-508.pdf

[10] The get-out-of-jail-free card for these guidance documents is that there are not legally binding.

[11] www.nichd.nih.gov/newsroom/news/083021-COVID-19-vaccination-menstruation

[12] 9/3/21 – searched under “USA, Territories and Unknown” using the terms AMENORRHOEA, DYSMENORRHOEA, HEAVY MENSTRUAL BLEEDING, HYPOMENORRHOEA, MENORRHAGIA, MENSTRUATION DELAYED, MENSTRUATION IRREGULAR.

[13] See www.adhesions.org and www.iscapps.org

[14] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/postmarket-requirements-and-commitments

[15] www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2017/761061Orig1s000ltr.pdf

[16] www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2021/761123Orig1s000ltr.pdf

[17] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/06-COVID-Rosenblum-508.pdf

[18] According to one writer, those choosing to remain unvaccinated, rather than being demonized, should be thanked for serving as a valuable control population enabling the effects of vaccines to be more fully evaluated.

[19] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/02-COVID-perez-508.pdf

[20] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/07-COVID-Gargano-508.pdf

[21] Slide 14 in footnote 13: Polack et al., “additional unpublished data obtained from authors”

[22] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/09-COVID-Oliver-508.pdf

[23] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/08-COVID-Dooling-508.pdf

[24] www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/role-vaccine-recommendations.html

[25] www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/researchmisconduct/index.htm

[26] https://ori.hhs.gov/FR_Doc_05-9643

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

---

Appendix: Html code for Pouwels et al paper on NDM Web site August18, 2021 (key sections marked)

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Reporting injuries and deaths to VAERS, which by law providers such as Deborah Conrad are required to do, is opposed by her employer because it promotes “vaccine hesitancy.” For continuing to report problems to VAERS and encouraging colleagues to do the same, she has been “voluntarily” dismissed, Orwellian-style.

This is an abbreviated version of Highwire’s full interview.

*

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 is a screenshot from the video

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The picture below is a frame from a smug Western documentary on the Syrian War. I wrote the caption in 2020, after viewing the documentary, which was a piece of propaganda filled with lies—a romanticized fairy tale about heroes in a self-made field hospital run by groups that the documentary, and most of Western media, benignly referred to as “the opposition” or sometimes “the democratic opposition,” but most often “the freedom fighters.”

I would more accurately call them paid mercenaries—some of them passionate Muslim fundamentalists, but many just there for the money, which is generously doled out by the CIA and its sister intelligence services in various other Western nations. They fight is to overthrow the government of Assad, who in 2014 won the Presidency by a landslide victory (which the two losing candidates claim was “manipulated”). They claim to want to liberate and democratize the Syrian people but are paid by Western countries to divide and conquer, as we saw happen in Afghanistan.

[Source: marktaliano.net]

The Taliban has many similarities with Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Hayat-Tahrir-al-Sham or as Arab people call all of these groups DAESH.

Taliban on the march. [Source: cfr.org]

The U.S. and its proxies have devastated large parts of the Arab world, leaving many thousands dead and displaced.

Now they are doing the same in Afghanistan, which may have suffered even more than Syria.

In August 2015, I visited Syria at the height of the war.

Syria was losing and DAESH was close to taking over government-controlled western Damascus; they were, so to speak, at the door of the gate!

I was there, with a Dutch and Belgian delegation consisting of writers, journalists and politicians, to visit Syrian government members, delegates and hospitals.

At that time, I was a member of the Dutch Socialist Party (SP) and full of aspirations and hope about modern-day socialism.

Unfortunately, I came to see that the SP does not promote socialism anymore, but turned out to be another part of the social-democratic system, or in many EU countries even liberals, with the same agenda as the neo-cons.

Our first shock was, and I dare to say made us, the delegation members’ “friends” for life, was the visit to a hospital in Harasta, a suburb of Damascus, which I knew very well.

The author visiting hospital in Harasta, a suburb of Damascus, filled with war victims. [Source: sana.sy]

I have visited Syria many times before the war and even stayed in Harasta for a few months.

Harasta was, before the war, a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Many natives of Harasta later joined DAESH (ISIS) together with natives of Hama, also a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold, who were crushed during their uprising in 1982 by Bashar al-Assad’s father, the late Hafez al-Assad.

Western media and politicians still support the Muslim Brotherhood and do not see the facts (or don’t want to see), that they are an Islamist group that has infiltrated many Western governments.

Many of the Hama insurgents received asylum in Europe, like the Islamists from Algeria and Tunisia, in the 1990s, who became more and more radical as time passed.

The hospital that I visited in Harasta was full of young Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers, men aged 18 to 25. They were injured by the jihadist, without legs, arms, eyes and their heads ripped apart, their future, destroyed by the war games of the Western-sponsored mercenaries.

Since that day, I have lost my hopes, beliefs, and faith in Western society as a whole!

Author in Harasta hospital with a wounded soldier. [Source: sana.sy]

During my stay in Syria, I also visited a refugee camp, not a Western (UN) one but a center for war and homeless refugees.

It housed many government members, like the now-deceased Minister of Information, Omran al-Zoubi, who gave us all the information, names and places of deaths or births, for the foreign jihadists, who joined ISIS.

The majority of ISIS volunteers from Europe were from Moroccan, Turkish, Tunisian, or Algerian descent, the generation—or offspring—of the asylum seekers from the nineties.

They were the ones who went through Turkey to Syria to fight for the Caliphate, for which many lost their lives.

Currently many former jihadists, their wives and children are detained in al-Hawl camp, which is situated in northern Syria and controlled by the Kurds.

A potential hotspot for future jihadists, the al-Hawl camp is a mini-state inside Syria.

The jihadists ought to be tried under Syrian law, but the occupation of northern Syria by the Kurds makes this impossible because the Kurds are a Western-sponsored minority.

The Syrian government is seen, by the West, as an illegitimate government, even after ten years of bloody war and carnage, with Assad being considered a dictator who killed his own people.

Syrian Minister of Information Omran-al-Zoubi, in the middle. [Photo courtesy of Sonja Van den Ende]

While staying in the (empty) hotel, overlooking the city of Damascus, I could see people rushing over the streets, the jihadists attacking with rockets from the suburbs of eastern Ghouta and Douma, killing many innocent people who just went out to buy food or medicine or to visit a doctor or hospital.

This was awful to watch. The MIGs (Russian fighter aircraft) dropped bombs or fired on the jihadists.

The shooting of the jihadists was in the news in many Western countries under the headline: “Assad is killing his own people.”

But what I observed was the jihadists—and not Assad’s forces—killing civilians in cold blood as they walked down the street.

During my visit to Syria, my group paid a visit to the Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, who tragically lost a son in the war after he was shot by a Western-sponsored jihadist.

While we were visiting the mufti, two rockets hit the neighboring building.

For a moment, we thought it was all over—that we would not survive the day. Some men started praying, the lights went out and we smelled dust and smoke everywhere.

Luckily, no one was injured and we were able to get out and return to the hotel.

Along the way we saw many cars with bullet holes, destroyed buildings, injured people and Syrian civilians with a haunted look in their eyes—after all, every minute could be their last.

The experience we had was life-shaping for many of us, and will remain with us forever. There is a saying, or a song, in Dutch with the text: “Although you are out of war, will the war ever go out of you?” That’s exactly what people experienced who were in the war zone.

The delegation, visiting a TV station. [Photo courtesy of Sonja van den Ende]

Coming Home

Going home was easy, the journey was easy, but leaving the people behind was difficult, knowing that many of them would not survive and that many more young men would be killed in the war.

But after a few days at home and trying to live a normal life again, it turned out to be even more difficult than expected.

This is because I was now seen by many in the Socialist Party as a pariah, a deranged woman who went to visit the “child murderer” Assad.

Suddenly, I was considered to be a right-wing radical and anti-semite.

I went around the country with the SP’s spokesman for Foreign Affairs and held information evenings about what was actually going on in Syria. This did not go down well with the party leadership. The spokesperson had to radically change his views, and stop giving these information evenings.

Logo of Dutch Socialist Party, whose leadership did not welcome anti-war views on Syria. [Source: wikipedia.org]

He was also forced to support the White Helmets—a “humanitarian” relief organization that provided a cover for propaganda and intelligence operations—and I had to step down.

The Socialist Party dramatically changed its course and now supported the White Helmets, which had their (financial) headquarters in Amsterdam.

That is until their leader, James LeMesurier, was found dead in Istanbul, Turkey, probably murdered by MI6 (British Secret Service).

His services were no longer needed, now that the West had lost the war in Syria.

Russia at the time became the new target to be demonized. After all, it had helped those stubborn Syrians defeat the jihadists and defend their country.

After Russia was blamed for the crash of a Malaysian jet over the Ukraine, a so-called citizen platform of journalists was created, called Bellingcat, which was actually a source of anti-Russian propaganda.

When I came home, I also had to report to the local police station and talk to totally ignorant police officers who asked me what I had been doing there in Syria and if I had carried out any terrorist activities!

Even my children were assigned a psychologist because they could suffer from their mother’s visit with a “child murderer.”

Naturally, I was myself monitored by the Dutch intelligence service; after all, I was now the enemy and the jihadists the friends of the kingdom!

Together with the (small) Communist Party and a large group of Christian Syrians, whose representatives were also with us on the trip to Syria, we still tried to draw attention to the matter, but life was made very difficult for us and we were practically ordered to keep silent.

Many of us were afraid for our jobs or families because, by that time in 2015, many “Syrian refugees” had already entered Germany and the Netherlands.

This is called a “refugee crisis” which could mean the downfall of the West, especially now that a Covid-19 crisis has arrived.

Most of the so-called refugees were radicalized ex-Muslim brothers from Harasta, Ghouta, Hama and eastern Aleppo.

As I wrote the above, the native jihadists lived in this region and also in Homs, the Baba Amr district. There, on my next trip to Syria in 2018, I saw the offer from the UN refugee office, written on the walls, to apply for asylum in Europe.

They came to Europe in large numbers—at least two million—the offer of “Mutti” Merkel eagerly accepted.

Many of the refugees have come illegally and not just from Syria, but also from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Quite a few are former ISIS (DAESH) fighters with their families.

When we drove through the neighborhoods of Harasta in August 2015, in armored cars accompanied by soldiers, these neighborhoods were already completely empty, most of the civilians having already accepted the offer of the UN in 2015 and “fleeing” to Europe.

The jihadists had taken over these neighborhoods, native and ISIS.

Together they killed the Syrians who lived in the then government-controlled area, doing their daily shopping.

Some native families were still present (not many) in the above-mentioned neighborhoods, because they were probably too poor to flee or had joined the jihadists first. Many of them were later used as human shields.

A shock went through the Western media when it became known that many Alawite women in Ghouta and Aleppo had been held captive and put in cages and thus displayed by the jihadists as apostate Muslims.

But the images were old news, from 2014; I had forwarded these images a long time ago, but politicians and news outlets never responded.

Now, five years later and after many more deaths, it came as a news flash!

From everything I have witnessed, the main narrative promoted in the West about the Syrian war is a lie. Politicians and the media lie, and even the Socialist Party has been caught in the war fever and has used smear tactics to marginalize anti-war voices.

The only positive in the whole story is that Syria has stood up for itself and will not be destroyed by Western powers. Russia and China will not let it happen and, moreover, the Syrians themselves will not let it happen.

The Syrian people have learned their lesson, a terrible lesson, with the loss of many lives and the partial destruction of their Motherland.

They will not be friends anymore with their invaders, too much has happened and too many deaths have occurred.

The West has gambled, but this time it went wrong for them as it underestimated the resolve of the Syrian people—much like that of the Vietnamese a generation earlier.

One thing I have learned from my experience is that the Syrians are not to be messed with.

They are tough—much more so than any European—they love their country, family and people above anything in this world and after ten years of destruction, it is clear that they are still united and will defeat any would-be foreign conqueror.

*

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.

Sonja is a freelance journalist from the Netherlands who has written about Syria, the Middle East, and Russia among other topics. Sonja can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: [Cartoon courtesy of Steve Brown]

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby COVID-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidence base.” 

OPEN LETTER AND NOTICE OF LIABILITY FROM DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS TO THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AUTHORITY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING COVID-19 VACCINATION

The cohesiveness of society is beginning to tatter into shreds as governments and media continue to push the manufactured COVID crisis into new frontiers of deception and divisiveness.

On the one hand there has been a flood of revelations revealing the unprecedented scale of the deaths and injuries being caused by the improperly tested COVID injections. Much of this information is accompanied by analysis revealing the tactics being deployed to misrepresent and hide the massive harm being done.

video

Public understanding of the lethal harm our society is absorbing from the COVID jabs is growing just as authorities are joining together to impose mandatory vaccines on many classes of workers and students.

This imposition of mandatory vaccines is being opposed by a growing coalition of Frontline Workers for Freedom. This group has organized large demonstrations throughout Alberta including at Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge. At Lethbridge City Hall about 400 people gathered at City Hall on Wednesday September 15 to oppose mandatory vaccines.  

In Alberta like elsewhere throughout North America, the public movement against forcing employees to be stabbed by unwanted COVID jabs is being led by police, EMS workers, and some nurses. By and large the leadership of trade unions is not backing up the position of their members who are resisting taking the dangerous COVID injections as a condition for retaining their jobs.

Nor is the Student Union at the University of Lethbridge or the professors’ faculty association at the U of L protecting their membership from the dangers associated with the vaccines. They are not standing up for the principles of freedom or choice or bodily autonomy.

My recently-published article on the failure of trade unions to align themselves with the upsurge of popular resistance to the coercive imposition of mandatory vaccination is available at Global Research.ca. See this.

Mike Whitney is the bearer of a lot of bad news in his well-documented article entitled. “The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right, It IS a Poison Death Shot.” Whitney describes that the COVID jabs were allowed to receive tentative emergency use authorization in spite of the fact that top authorities in the regulatory agencies knew the jabs would cause death, injuries and infertilities.  

As Whitney sees it, its not human error that is causing the harm but rather the damage is being done because of the malevolence of those pushing the vaccines on the world population. Whitney concludes by writing,

The vaccine isn’t supposed to work, it’s supposed to make things worse. And it has! It’s increased the susceptibility of millions of people to severe illness and death. That’s what it’s done. It’s a stealth weapon in an entirely new kind of war; a war aimed at restructuring the global order and establishing absolute social control. Those are the real objectives. It has nothing to do pandemics or viral contagion. It’s about power and politics. That’s all.

Dr. Joseph Mercola, a leading member of the of the group that US President Joe Biden labelled the “Disinformation Dozen,” surveys legal cases involving legal challenges to mandatory vaccinations. Biden is attempting to force the owners and managers of all businesses with over 100 employees to require mandatory vaccinations as a condition of employment.

One of the legal strategies being used to oppose vaccine mandates in court involves the scientifically-well founded argument that natural immunity to COVID-19 is much more strong, resilient and adaptable that the weak and circumscribed immunity from the COVID shots. In fact vaccines undermine the natural immunity of those who have been infected with COVID-19. See this.

Biden has made coercively-imposed vaccines a centerpiece of his presidential administration in a sharply worded speech where he basically characterized so-called “unvaccinated” people as enemies of the state. Justin Trudeau is employing a similar strategy in his campaign for re-election in Canada. How can you run an election campaign when all the main parties basically agree on almost everything? Trudeau seems to think he can appoint the unvaccinated as the foes he promises to defeat if elected.

The “unvaccinated” are being demonized and dehumanized. We are being blamed for many things, including the completely false claims that it is us who are filling the hospitals. This process of dehumanization is all too familiar to an aroused group of holocaust survivors. They see another vicious crime taking shape. They write,

If 80 years ago it was the Jews who were demonized as spreaders of infectious diseases, today it is the unvaccinated who are being accused of spreading the virus. Physical integrity, freedom to travel, freedom to work, all coexistence has been taken away from people in order to force vaccination upon them. Children are being enticed to get vaccinated against their parents’ judgement. See this.

Whitney’s article calls attention to the interventions of top medical researchers in Europe who identify their group as Doctors for Covid Ethics. The group includes Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, Prof. Martin Haditsche and Dr. Michael Yeadon, all top authorities in their fields.

In February of 2021, 12 health care professionals including those named above warned the European Medicines Authority that it should not give the COVID jabs emergency use authorization. The Doctors for Covid Ethics blew the whistle, arguing that the vaccines were too dangerous and that they were likely to cause a wide array of serious blood ailments as well as infertility. I wrote about their intervention in a Global Research essay earlier in September. It is entitled “Herd Stupidity.”

On September 13 the same scientists wrote back to the European Medicines Authority noting the failure of the EMA to take their professional whistle blowing seriously. They explain the murderous consequences of the disastrous decision to “rush to vaccines first and conduct research later.” Infamy is cast on many officials who showed contempt for the scientific method by their decision to rush ahead with mass injections of vaccines before proper research could take place. The malfeasance extends to the enforcers of mandatory vaccines including President Mike Mahon of the University of Lethbridge.

Rather than deal with the increasingly compelling case that the vaccines are doing much more harm than good, Dr. Mahon and the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors chose to indiscriminately and coercively push mandatory vaccinations on the entire university community including students, faculty members, and staff.

Of course many university presidents corporate presidents, government officials, and media moguls are guilty of the same malfeasance. But the cooptation of universities removes a major obstacle to the plans of those behind the manufactured COVID crisis. It seems that a primary condition for participation in the activities of higher education these days is to demonstrate a willingness to buckle to administrative dictate rather than stand on the ground critical thinking and sound independent research.

The intervention of the Doctors for Covid Ethics comes in the form of a notice of liability making explicit the guilt of those officials who chose to ignore their medical intervention back in February. It is worthwhile to share a lengthy section of the notice. They begin by explaining

This request [for a response from the European Medicines Authority back in February]was scorned and the vaccination program has been rolled out on a global scale, with catastrophic consequences that we trust are known to you. Our original fears have been confirmed and further pathways leading to injury and death by the experimental agents have been uncovered through new scientific discoveries in 2021. The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby COVID-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidencebase.

This request was scorned and the vaccination program has been rolled out on a global scale, with catastrophic consequences that we trust are known to you. Our original fears have been confirmed and further pathways leading to injury and death by the experimental agents have been uncovered through new scientific discoveries in 2021. The rush to vaccinate first and research later has left you in a position whereby COVID-19 vaccination policy is now entirely divorced from the relevant evidence base…..

As you consider your next steps in mandating a vaccine that is contra-indicated by science, we draw your attention to recently published Freedom of Information requests, which reveal gross negligence in the COVID vaccine authorisation process, including misleading the Commission on Human Medicines as to whether any independent verification of vaccine trial data had occurred.

Hapless and defenceless children are now becoming victims of the blasphemic and negligently regulated vaccination agenda. We charge you for actively or tacitly paving the way to the second holocaust of mankind. The same charge has been independently submitted by survivors of the first holocaust and their families.

You are hereby placed on notice that you stand to be held personally and individually responsible for causing foreseeable and preventable harm and death from COVID-19 vaccines, and for supporting crimes against humanity, defined as acts that are purposely committed as part of a widespread or systematic policy, directed against civilians, committed in furtherance of state policy.

The gravity of your deeds is now laid out before the world. For the sake of yourselves and your families, rise and respond. Or go down in history books in indelible shame and disgrace.

Signed, Doctors for Covid Ethics

Cc: Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

The US Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, carries similar regulatory responsibility for these COVID vaccines as the does the European Medicines Authority in the EU. In Canada, Health Canada is the responsible agency that gave the vaccines’ emergency use authorization.

The FDA is in serious disarray especially after it gave “approval” to a new Pfizer COVID vaccine to be known as Comirnaty. This disarray developed because the FDA failed to include its own panel of scientific experts a say in the approval process. Some on the panel resigned because of the decision to leave then out of the process.

This failure can be seen as yet another violation of the precautionary principle. The supposedly “approved” product, however, is currently unavailable and probably will not be available until Pfizer gets a guarantee that it will not be sued for any deaths or injuries caused by the Comirnaty vaccine.

The indemnification of vaccine companies speaks of the corrupt nature inherent in the public-private partnerships integral to the workings of the pharmaceutical industry. Like many industries, Big Pharma has captured its regulators. All too often government agencies overseeing the activities of companies like Pfizer or Moderna have officials who are patent holders with proprietary interests in some of the very products they assess and oversee. The notorious litany of lies and conflict-of-interest swirling around Dr. Anthony Fauci is emblematic of an industry gone horribly wrong.

On Sept. 17 the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee refused to approve the release of the booster shot that Joe Biden had declared would become available on September 20. This refusal of the usual suspects to comply with the agenda of quick and compliant authorization signals that something is changing. Even insiders are starting to try to distance themselves from the dark cloud of corruption that hangs over the whole area of government regulation in the era of the manufactured COVID 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.

Dr. Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently emeritus Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Daily Sceptic

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Daraa is returning to peace.  The summer saw heavy clashes between illegal armed groups and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in Daraa al-Balad, the old section of Daraa, which sits on the border with Jordan and Israel.

About 900 men belonging to illegal armed groups have laid down their arms in a Russian mediated peace deal, which has brought stability to Daraa.

These men are battle weary and want to rebuild their lives and homes in Daraa.  They have begun to work alongside the SAA to restore peace and stability throughout the area. The SAA is the national army and is comprised solely of Syrian citizens.  The SAA and the former armed militiamen have much in common but had been divided by foreign interests, who are using the Syrian people as pawns in an international chess game.  Under the terms of the peace deal, Russian police will patrol the area, and the SAA and men who surrendered their arms will perform joint security duties at checkpoints.

The Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria, officially known as the Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides and Refugee Migration Monitoring in the Syrian Arab Republic, has been making deals that defuse tensions, and create a safe place for Syrians to return home and rebuild their lives after years of fighting and destruction.  The goal of the SAA and their Russian allies is to clear all areas from terrorists and illegal armed groups.

A Russian-mediated deal in 2018 had allowed some armed men to remain in Daraa, while they participated in security, but the deal was periodically marred by breaches as the armed men violated the terms and assassinated soldiers of the SAA.

Those men who chose not to surrender their arms recently were allowed safe passage to the north of Syria, to areas under terrorist control.  They had initially requested to be sent out of the country, to Turkey or Jordan, but this was not fulfilled.

Some of the terrorists are said to be hoarding large amounts of US dollars, presumably paid to them from the US military base in Jordan, which had been the training and supply center for terrorists following Radical Islam and fighting the Syrian state and the Syrian civilians for ‘regime change’ since 2011.

Sections of the Syrian border in the north are occupied by the Turkish military and their militia following Radical Islam.  The men from Daraa were afraid their cash would be confiscated by terrorists, such as Al Qaeda, who holds Idlib in the northwest.  Once the men arrived in the north of Syria they could pass freely into Turkey, and from there take one of many smuggling boats to Greece, and then move into Europe, using their cash to easily finance their trip.  Once in Europe, the men can apply for refugee visas to the US and Canada or can take advantage of the lucrative benefits available in Germany.

The “Arab Spring” hit Syria in March 2011.  In Egypt, protests broke out in the capital, Cairo.  However, in Syria, the initial protests began in a small, insignificant border town known for agriculture.  What would make Daraa different than Damascus, the second-largest city in Syria, and the cultural and political center of the country?

The difference is that Daraa is on the Jordanian border.  It is its geographical location that marked it as ‘ground zero’ for the coming onslaught of terrorism and destruction beginning in March 2011.

Jordan is a US ally, and an Israeli ally.  Syria and Israel at technically in a state of war.

In 2017 President Trump cut the funding of a multi-billion-dollar project by the CIA, which paid salaries, and provided training and weapons to terrorists following Radical Islam.  They were the ‘boots on the ground’ for the US-NATO plan for Syrian ‘regime change’.

President Trump tried to shut down the US military involvement in Syria, but the Pentagon refused to allow it, and the Pentagon got its way.  The CIA’s Syrian slush-fund was zero, but the Pentagon’s books were still open with a healthy account for ‘boots on the ground’ which were not American troops.

*

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 on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Purpose

“This really should be the end of the debate,” says Ashley Styczynski, an infectious-disease researcher at Stanford University in California and a co-author of the preprint describing the trial. The research “takes things a step further in terms of scientific rigour”, says Deepak Bhatt, a medical researcher at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who has published research on masking. — Nature | News | 09 September 2021 | “Face masks for COVID pass their largest test yet”

The leading trend-setting mainstream media and institutional public relations offices have been unreservedly enthusiastic about “the Bangladesh mask study” (see Appendix A).

Here, I review the methods and results of that study by Abaluck et al. (2021) published as a working paper by Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA): “The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh”, 01 September 2021.

The study’s stated primary outcome regarding the benefits of face masks is “symptomatic SARS‑CoV‑2 seroprevalence”, meaning the prevalence during the study period of individuals self-reporting COVID-like symptoms who also test positive using a laboratory blood test presumed to be specific for SARS-CoV-2.

Summary

The cluster-randomized trial study of Abaluck et al. (2021) is fatally flawed, and therefore of no value for informing public health policy, for two main reasons:

1. The antibody detection was performed using a single commercial FDA emergency-use-authorized (EUA) serology test that is not suitable for the intended application to SARS-CoV-2 in Bangladesh (not calibrated or validated for populations in Bangladesh; undetermined cross-reactivity against broad-array IgM antibodies, malaria, influenza, etc.).
2. The participants (individual level, family level, village level) in the control and treatment arms were systematically handled in palpably different ways that are linked to factors established to be strongly associated to infection and severity with viral respiratory diseases, in particular, and to individual health in general.

These disjunctive fatal flaws are explained below. Either one is sufficient to invalidate the results and conclusions of Abaluck et al.

Furthermore, the Abaluck et al. symptomatic seroprevalence (SSP) results are prima facie statistically untenable. The treatment-to-control differences in numbers of symptomatic seropositive individuals are too small to rule out large unknown co-factor, baseline heterogeneity, and study-design bias effects. In addition, they are at best borderline significant, in terms of purely ideal-statistical estimations of uncertainty. Finally, the practice of using whole households while reporting on an individual basis, introduces unknown correlations/ clustering, and vitiates the mathematic assumptions that underlie the statistical method.

Can the chosen antibody test be used in this application?

Is the antibody assay specific for SARS-CoV-2?

A single laboratory test was used in the Abaluck et al. (2021) study: the “SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA” test kit (InBios, Seattle, Washington).

Here, ELISA stands for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, which is one of three main assay methods for routinely detecting or quantifying antibodies. IgG is a class of immunoglobulins. For the non-expert, two of the five classes of immunoglobulins, which are of relevance in the present critique, can be described as follows:

• Immunoglobulin M (IgM) – IgM antibodies are produced as a body’s first response to a new infection or to a new “non-self” antigen, providing short-term protection. They increase for several weeks and then decline as IgG production begins.
• Immunoglobulin G (IgG) – About 70-80% of the immunoglobulins in the blood are IgG. Specific IgG antibodies are produced during an initial infection or other antigen exposure, rising a few weeks after it begins, then decreasing and stabilizing. The body retains a catalog of IgG antibodies that can be rapidly reproduced whenever exposed to the same antigen. IgG antibodies form the basis of long-term protection against microorganisms. In those with a normal immune system, sufficient IgG is produced to prevent re-infection. Vaccinations use this process to prevent initial infections and add to the catalog of IgG antibodies, by exposing a person to a weakened, live microorganism or to an antigen that stimulates recognition of the microorganism. — Merk Manuals | Immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM) | accessed on 15 September 2021

Abaluck et al. (2021) state “This assay detects IgG antibodies against the spike protein subunit (S1) of SARS-CoV-2.” This statement is incorrect.

None of the official documents about the assay claim that the assay detects “the spike protein subunit (S1) of SARS-CoV-2”, or any part(s) of the spike protein. Rather, only a broad claim is ever made, of the type “The SCoV-2 Detect IgG ELISA is authorized for the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum or plasma” or “INTENDED USE: The SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA is an in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum or plasma”:

• IFU LBL-0113-03 (English) (Instructions for Use) (19 May 2021)
• Brochure COVE-G
• FDA EUA Letter of Authorization COVE-G (14 May 2021)
• Health Care Provider Fact Sheet COVE-G (14 May 2021)

These documents are also available on the FDA website.

The only mention of “spike”, which I could find, is that the FDA webpage “EUA Authorized Serology Test Performance” (“Content current as of 18 August 2021”, accessed on 14 September 2021) has the title of the section for this assay as:

The latter FDA (Test Performance, 2021) webpage provides the independent scientific assessment in the “Test Facts” that were used for FDA EUA approval as “NCI’s Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research Evaluation Report” (dated 13 July 2021; accessed on 14 September 2021).

The said independent scientific assessment (FNLCR, 2021) is the reference document for evaluating the assay used by Abaluck et al. (2021). The FNLCR (2021) report makes it clear that not only was the assay not validated for detecting any specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody, but it was also not validated for any ability to distinguish IgM and IgG:

“The positive samples selected may not reflect the distribution of antibody levels in patient populations that would be evaluated by such a test. Because all samples are positive for both IgM and IgG, this evaluation cannot verify that tests intended to detect IgM and IgG antibodies separately detect these antibodies independently.”

Given the nonspecificity of IgM — by its very nature as an initial broad-array immune response — this means that the assay may have a high potential for cross-reactivity with a large spectrum of infections or conditions.

The manufacturer of the assay (InBios) reports having made an in-house (not independent) evaluation of “Cross-Reactivity (Analytical Specificity)” and reports no cross-reactivity for several antibodies to other viral infections and autoantibodies, based on small numbers (n = 3-8) of unspecified reference samples, as (InBios, IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021):

Presumably, the reference samples were chosen to have specific IgG of the tested viral infections, and would therefore have little or no residual IgM initially induced by the tested infections, since IgG is generated as IgM decreases as functions of time from onset of symptoms.

From this Table (InBios, IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021), one might ask: Since cross-reactivity for rheumatoid factor was detected (3/18) by testing 18 samples, why were more samples not used for the other diseases (at least 18 samples, say)? After all, there is no lack of influenza standards, for example. Otherwise, with the small number of samples used, it is entirely possible to have missed large incidences of cross-reactivity.

As it stands, cross-reactivity is reported solely for “Rheumatoid Factor” (3/18) (InBios, IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021).  Given this known cross-reactivity of the assay, Abaluck et al. should have obtained baseline prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren’s syndrome in their control and intervention arms, especially for their most elderly cohorts (50-60 and 60+ years) and for the two types of face masks, or they should have ruled out these conditions in their elderly “symptomatic seropositive” individuals, especially in view of their most surprising results (their Figure 3). Abaluck et al. did not do this (did not report doing this).

Yadouleton et al. (2021) studied cross-reactivity (specificity) of the InBios SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA assay, and of another ELISA assay nominally for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Of 60 pre-COVID (2019) samples from Benin, they found that the InBios assay gave many samples that were near the positive/negative threshold (“cut-off”) (their Figure 1A, fourth panel).  They concluded, from the results for both assays: “acute malaria is the most plausible explanation for unspecific SARS-CoV-2 ELISA reactivity in prepandemic controls”, and found false positive rates as high as 25% (for the non-InBios assay).

The study of Yadouleton et al. (2021) is especially relevant because “Bangladesh is one of the four major malaria-endemic countries in South-East Asia having approximately 34% of its population at risk of malaria […] with a prevalence ranging between 3.1% and 36%” (Islam et al., 2013). Abaluck et al. did not report having surveyed or screened for past or present infections of malaria among their study subjects.

Is the antibody assay validated for use in Bangladesh?

The short answer is “no”. The long answer is as follows.

To start, we need accurate definitions of test specificity and sensitivity, which are provided, in the words of the FDA (Test Performance, 2021), as:

The performance of these [EUA authorized serology] tests is described by their “sensitivity,” or their ability to identify those with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (true positive rate), and their “specificity,” or their ability to identify those without antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (true negative rate).

There are two major problems with application of the InBios antibody assay to populations in Bangladesh.

The first major problem is that the performance of the emergency utilization authorized InBios test has never been evaluated for a real-world population; not in the USA, and not in Bangladesh. In the words of the independent evaluators (FNLCR, 2021) (p. 4):

Samples used in this evaluation were not randomly selected, and sensitivity (PPA) and specificity (NPA) estimates in this report may not be indicative of the real-world performance of the InBios International Inc. SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA. […]

1.3 Important caveats

Sensitivity and specificity estimates in this report may not be indicative of the real world performance of the InBios International Inc. SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA. […]

The number of samples in the panel is a minimally viable sample size that still provides reasonable estimates and confidence intervals for test performance, and the samples used may not be representative of the antibody profile observed in patient populations.

The second major problem is as follows.

The InBios test is based on optical density (OD) measurements through the ELISA solution in the final step of the assay: the more reactive the sample (to the ELISA substrate intended to bind the target antibody), the greater the OD. The measured OD is divided by “the average OD plus three standard deviations” for many reference samples presumed to be free of the target antibody. This ratio (OD_sample/OD_cut-off), called the “Immunological Status Ratio” (ISR), is used to discriminate “positive” (ISR ≥ 1.1) and “negative” (ISR ≤ 0.9) samples. The manufacturer considers ISR values of >0.9 through >1.1 to be “borderline”/undetermined results.

In the words of the manufacturer (InBios, IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021) (p. 10):

The assay cut-off value was determined by screening a large number (>100) of normal human serum (NHS) samples that were collected [in the USA] prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (~November, 2019). The cut-off selection was performed by estimating the mean of the negative specimens plus three (3) standard deviations.

Therefore, the determination of OD_cut-off is critical and its value depends on the population from which one draws the so-called NHS samples. We can presume that InBios drew its NHS samples from a USA population, and that its arbitrary choices of “1.1/0.9 ISR thresholds” and “plus three (3) standard deviations” were made in order to “make it work”. That is, in order to resolve “positive” from “negative” serum samples, from USA residents known independently to test positive for SARS-CoV-2.

It is not reasonable to expect that the thus adopted test values (OD_cut-off, and 1.1/0.9 ISR thresholds) determined using “NHS” from USA residents would apply to a population of Bangladesh citizens, because the pre-COVID “normal human serums” from Bangladesh citizens would be significantly different, regarding the prevalence of antibodies to various viral infections, autoantibodies, and cross-reactivity with immune-response products from various other infections (e.g., malaria) and conditions (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren’s syndrome).

Indeed, even entirely within the USA, Kaufman et al. (2021), in their large study of  “More than 2.4 million SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology (initiated April 21, 2020) and 6.6 million nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) (initiated March 9, 2020) results on persons from across the United States as of July 10, 2020”, found that: “SARS-CoV-2 IgG positivity was observed in 91% (19,434/21,452) of individuals tested after a positive [nucleic acid amplification testing] NAAT result and in 10% (7,831/80,968) after a negative NAAT result. Factors associated with seropositivity include age, region of patient residence, and interval between NAAT and IgG serology.”

To be clear, Kaufman et al. (2021) found that both the rate of IgG positivity among NAAT-positive individuals (~sensitivity) and the rate at which NAAT-negative individuals had subsequent IgG positivity (~false-positive rate) differed significantly with respect to geographic area within the USA: 93.4% to 86.2% and 16.4% to 4.8%, respectively, in going from the 5-state NE area (NY/NJ/MA/RI/CT) to all other states (their Figure 3).

Therefore, we must assume that there can be a large systematic difference in serology test performance and/or in population immunological response or characteristics in going from the USA to Bangladesh. The estimated magnitude of this systematic effect, indicated by the extensive results of Kaufman et al. (2021) for different geographical regions in the USA, is large enough to invalidate those results from Abaluck et al. that involve small differences in numbers of tested individuals, such as the impact of surgical masks on the most elderly cohorts, even if there were not the serious validation problems outlined above for the InBios test.

Furthermore, purely in terms of population immunology, do USA and Bangladesh populations have different prevalences, at any given time, of broad-array IgM, which the InBios test is not established to resolve from IgG?

Specifically, the spectrum of disease prevalence in Bangladesh is dramatically different than in the USA. Bangladesh has a “high” degree of risk (2020) for (The World Factbook): bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, typhoid fever, dengue fever, malaria, leptospirosis, and rabies; and an obesity rate of 3.6 % (2016), compared to the USA obesity rate of 36.2% (2016) (adult prevalence rate).

Serum matrix effects (“cross-reactivity”) must be expected to be large and different for Bangladesh, compared to the USA. Irrespective of anything else, or of any manufacturer’s claims, Abaluck et al. (2021) should have stringently tested a representative array of known (independently and reliably determined) positive and negative serum samples from Bangladesh, using the InBios test as provided. Without this minimal precaution of upfront verification to rule out differences and to validate test utility, their test results are useless for the intended scientific purposes.

Was “spectrum bias” duly examined by InBios and Abaluck et al.? Are the positives reliable?

The answer is “no”, at least on the basis of what is reported.

“Spectrum bias” is the unavoidable variation of performance of a test arising from the frequency distribution (“spectrum”) of values that are being measured by the test in the given tested population (for example, see: Usher-Smith et al., 2016).

Two problems occur.

1. At calibration: a test can have a significantly different actual performance than the performance evaluated using any set or array of known samples if the manufacturer’s calibration (for setting of cut-off and undetermined range, and for assay protocol development) uses solely means and standard deviations, without regard to the shape of the distribution of test measurements (OD values) of the calibration samples (the “>100 of normal human serum (NHS)” samples used by InBios). This can produce misleading and over-enthusiastic test performance characteristics, and it again demonstrates the importance of using representative calibration samples.
2. In the field: a test can have significantly different performances (sensitivity, specificity) on different populations having different distributions of test measurements (OD values), even if the populations are otherwise comparable (comparable cross-reactive pathogens, co-factors, age structure, health status, etc.).

One simple consequence of the “spectrum bias” effect is that, in populations with low prevalence, many of the test results are close to the positive/negative threshold value, leading to particularly large errors, in general. This is why the FDA states (FDA, Test Performance, 2021) (p. 2):

In low prevalence populations, the result of a single antibody test is not likely to be sufficiently accurate to make an informed decision regarding whether or not an individual has had a prior infection or truly has antibodies to the virus. A second test, typically one assessing for the presence of antibodies to a different viral protein, generally would be needed to increase the accuracy of the overall testing results.

This is also why the FDA (Test Performance, 2021) (p. 47) estimates a theoretical 95% confidence interval of (50.5%, 100%) in the positive predictive value (PPV) (probability of a positive being correct) for 5% population prevalence for the InBios test, despite the stellar EUA evaluation numbers.

This means that, depending on “prevalence” of the assay-reactive condition in the Bangladesh study populations of Abaluck et al., the reliability of a positive determination can be 50% or less for small prevalence. Abaluck et al. report symptomatic prevalences of 0.76% (control arm) and 0.68% (intervention arm).

In the present case, the “test measurement” or “value that is being measured” is the above-described ratio (OD_sample/OD_cut-off), called the “Immunological Status Ratio” (ISR), obtained for a given serum sample using the InBios assay. It is a continuous variable, and it is obviously prone to “spectrum bias” since the manufacturer even defines an undetermined region, for ISR >0.9 through >1.1, rather than simply a definite positive/negative threshold value.

Therefore, if InBios wanted users and evaluators to gauge the potential for “spectrum bias”, then it would, among other things, publish the distribution of ISR values of its large number of so-called normal human serum (NHS) samples that were collected in the USA prior to COVID (InBios, IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021). I could not find such information, or any discussion of this issue. Likewise, the FNLCR (2021), in its evaluation of the test, discloses only positive/negative status, not ISR values for the evaluation samples.

Similarly, Abaluck et al. do not disclose their ISR values, do not show distributions of ISR values, and do not even state how many of their samples gave “undetermined” (“equivocal”) ISR values on initial measurement (Abaluck et al., 2021):

[…] the immunological status ratio (ISR) was calculated as the ratio of optical density divided by the cut-off value. Samples were considered positive if the ISR value was determined to be at least 1.1. Samples with an ISR value 0.9 or below were considered negative. Samples with equivocal ISR values were retested in duplicate, and resulting ISR values were averaged.

For example, are the distributions of ISR values different for the control and intervention arms? We do not know.

Conclusion regarding the serology test

In conclusion, the FDA emergency-use-approved (EUA) InBios serology test was improperly applied by Abaluck et al. (2021):

1. It is not specific to SARS-CoV-2, since it has undetermined cross-reactivity against broad-array IgM antibodies (n=0), undetermined cross-reactivity with other corona viruses (n=0), probable cross-reactivity with malaria (peer-reviewed article), known cross-reactivity with rheumatoid factor (n=18), insufficiently tested cross-reactivity with influenza A/B (n=7), hepatitis B (n=5), hepatitis C (n=5), respiratory syncytial virus (n=4), and others, undetermined cross-reactivity (n=0) with the high-risk pathogens endemic to Bangladesh (bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, typhoid fever, dengue fever, malaria, leptospirosis, and rabies), and unknown comparative serum matrix effects in USA and Bangladesh.
2. It has not been validated with any actual population, whether in the USA or Bangladesh, and is calibrated solely using USA serum samples.
3. It is not calibrated or validated for Bangladesh, and cannot be used as-given on residents of Bangladesh.

I find it unacceptable that a test that is not approved for patients —

LIMITATIONS: … • Assay results should be interpreted only in the context of other laboratory findings and the total clinical status of the patient. (InBios, IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021) (p. 12)

— would be used to diagnose participants in a trial, as having COVID-19, without any clinical evaluation beyond self-reporting of symptoms with survey questions, in order to justify long-term application of a treatment to millions of people, which has known and unknown associated harms (Rancourt. 2021).

Are the control and treatment arms valid (comparable)?

Let me start by stating the obvious, since it seems to have escaped detection by virtually all media and public-relations reviewers (including the folks at Nature): A trial in which the researchers spend significant resources to convince the non-control group to accept or adopt the treatment is not a “randomized” trial, nor is it “controlled”. Rather, it is a trial in which one group is chosen to be intrusively manipulated to receive the treatment, whereas the other group is free from this manipulation.  The trial design is not one in which the treatment and control groups are distinguished by the presence or absence of treatment, as the sole systematic difference. In addition, in this case, individuals in both groups are free to adopt the treatment or not, and that choice is anything but random, in both groups. If anything, the study of Abaluck et al. is in-effect merely another comparative study, but with extensive researcher interference.

Treatment alone versus adding super-treatment interventions

The study of Abaluck et al. (2021) suffers from a major difficulty: the researchers must apply significant and repeated interventions (in a campaign to induce acceptance of the treatment of mask wearing) to the treatment arm, while preventing those interventions in the treatment arm from inducing bias in the outcome.

In other words, the cluster-randomized study is worse than merely unblinded. It is a case in which the treated individuals are not solely subjected to the treatment (mask wearing), but are additionally subjected to the sustained and multi-faceted campaign of interventions to induce acceptance of the treatment.

It is one thing to design and evaluate interventions intended to generate mask use, but it is quite another thing to measure the health impact of increased mask use alone, without introducing co-factors arising from the interventions.

One way to reduce potential bias would have been to measure prevalence of the disease solely in families in the treatment arm (treatment villages) randomly selected not to be subjected to the interventions, if that were possible with redesigned interventions. However, this was not done. Prevalence in the treatment arm was measured in the same individuals and families that were subjected to the interventions.

This is not a fatal flaw if there are compelling and empirically supported reasons to believe that the additional (super-treatment) measures cannot affect the outcome. However, in this case, the opposite is true: there are compelling reasons to expect that the super-treatment measures affect the outcome, as explained below.

The basic super-treatment intervention consisted of the following elements, as described by Abaluck et al. (2021):

To emphasize the importance of mask-wearing, we prepared a brief video of notable public figures discussing why, how, and when to wear a mask. The video was shown to each household during the mask distribution visit and featured the Honorable Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina, the head of the Imam Training Academy, and the national cricket star Shakib Al Hasan. During the distribution visit, households also received a brochure based on WHO materials depicting proper mask-wearing.

We implemented a basic set of interventions in all treatment villages, and cross-randomize additional intervention elements in randomly chosen subsets of treatment villages to investigate whether those have any additional impact on mask-wearing. The basic intervention package consists of five main elements:

1. One-time mask distribution and promotion at households.
2. Mask distribution in markets on 3-6 days per week.
3. Mask distribution at mosques on three Fridays during the first four weeks of the intervention.
4. Mask promotion in public spaces and markets where non-mask wearers were encouraged to wear masks (weekly or biweekly).
5. Role-modeling and advocacy by local leaders, including imams discussing the importance of mask-wearing at Friday prayers using a scripted speech provided by the research team.

Participants, mask promoters, and mask surveillance staff were not blinded as intervention materials were clearly visible.

Science of the stress-immune relationship

The science background to understand why the interventions of Abaluck et al. would have an impact on prevalence is as follows.

First, researchers performing comparative trials for outcomes involving immune response must make themselves aware that ordinary psychological stress significantly impacts immune response, and that psychoneuroimmunology is a large field of research (Ader and Cohen, 1993).

Social status, within a specific dominance hierarchy, is a major predictor of chronic stress, in social animals including humans (Cohen et al., 1997a) (Sapolsky, 2005), which, in turn, may be the dominant determinant of individual health, disease burden, and longevity (Cohen et al., 2007).

Ordinary psychological stress is known to be a dominant factor in making an individual susceptible to viral respiratory disease symptomatic infection, and to increase the severity of the infection (Cohen et al., 1991). Also, social isolation (paucity of social-network interactions), in addition to individual psychological stress, is known to have an added impact on the individual’s susceptibility to viral respiratory disease (Cohen et al., 1997b).

Furthermore, there is a large age gradient: extended periods of psychological stress are known to have more deleterious health effects in elderly persons than in younger persons (Prenderville et al., 2015).

The stress-immune relationship, however, is not simply a monotonic function of integrated intensity. Frequency and duration are pivotal: chronic or long-term stress harms immune response, whereas short-term adaptive stress enhances immune response. The often-cited review by Dhabhar (2014) has:

Short-term (i.e., lasting for minutes to hours) stress experienced during immune activation enhances innate/primary and adaptive/secondary immune responses. Mechanisms of immuno-enhancement include changes in dendritic cell, neutrophil, macrophage, and lymphocyte trafficking, maturation, and function as well as local and systemic production of cytokines. In contrast, long-term stress suppresses or dysregulates innate and adaptive immune responses by altering the Type 1–Type 2 cytokine balance, inducing low-grade chronic inflammation, and suppressing numbers, trafficking, and function of immunoprotective cells.

Peters et al. (2021) have reviewed these concepts and the known science for the relevance to COVID-19. They pointed out that “the socioeconomic issues and various aspects of the Western type lifestyle that are closely associated with psychosocial stress have recently been reported to contribute to COVID-19”. Their ultimate aim is to “clarify whether psychosocial interventions have the potential to optimize neuroendocrine-immune responses against respiratory viral infections during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Mechanisms of bias from the super-treatment interventions

Given the above-reviewed knowledge, it seems clear to me that Abaluck et al. (2021) have failed to consider a critical issue in their study design. Their interventions are interpersonal and societal interactions. All such interactions either induce or relieve psychological stress experienced by the individual, to different degrees and of different durations.

Specific elements (1 to 5) of the “basic intervention package” implemented by Abaluck et al. can be anticipated to modulate psychological stress in the following ways:

(1) The distribution visit to each household in the treatment arm: “The video was shown to each household during the mask distribution visit and featured the Honorable Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina, the head of the Imam Training Academy, and the national cricket star Shakib Al Hasan. During the distribution visit, households also received a brochure based on WHO materials depicting proper mask-wearing.”

Such a visit would provide (as it appears to have been intended to provide) hierarchical validation to the family members, thus raising the experienced social status, and reducing the dominance-hierarchy stress, experienced by lower strata, below its pre-visit long-term baseline value.

(2, 3) The masks themselves would serve as a visual symbol of belonging to this thereby privileged group, and the regular mask distributions (in markets and at mosques) would be a constant interactive confirmation of an appreciative and caring hierarchical authority; all of which boosts the perceived increased social status, and reduces or displaces dominance-hierarchy stress.

(4) “Mask promotion in public spaces and markets where non-mask wearers were encouraged to wear masks (weekly or biweekly)”: “mask promoters patrolled public areas a few times a week and asked those not wearing masks to put on a mask.” (Abaluck et al. found that excluding this element produced an increase in mask use of 10.9%, compared to 28.4% when it was included.)

Such interactions are classic short-term, mostly unpredictable and repeated stress events, precisely of the type that “enhances innate/primary and adaptive/secondary immune responses” (Dhabhar, 2014).

(5) “Role-modeling and advocacy by local leaders, including imams discussing the importance of mask-wearing at Friday prayers using a scripted speech provided by the research team”

“Role-modeling” would again strengthen the perceived increased social status, and reduce dominance-hierarchy stress. “Advocacy” can be oppressive, but it can also be of a more collaborative nature, which would work better when the advocate cannot surveil or enforce, and which would again work to reduce long-term dominance-hierarchy stress below the pre-study baseline.

Therefore, given what is known about stress-immune relations, the super-treatment interventions applied by Abaluck et al. would thereby enhance immune responses in the participants in the treatment arm, and consequently would reduce the probability of developing symptoms and of being infected, irrespective of any effect arising from filtration by the face masks.

Peters et al. (2021) envisage and argue for preventative treatment by stress management strategies precisely for COVID-19.

Furthermore, a successful socializing and educational campaign to the effect that face masks provide safety would be anticipated to create a bias towards a smaller tendency to recognize and report symptoms.  In the Abaluck et al. study, symptoms were reported by phone or in person survey-interviews with the heads of families.

Thus, the trial design in the Abaluck et al. study has foreseeable built-in biases probably acting in the same direction. Their experimental design with interventions is fatally flawed, and the results are therefore of no value, irrespective of the problems with the blood test.

Is the size of the trial sufficient for the results to be reliable?

All adults, 18 through 60+ years old, both mask types together

There were approximately 170 K individuals in each arm of the study, which is a large number (Abaluck et al., 2021). This does not in itself guarantee statistically reliable results, depending on the sizes of the cohort-specific treatment-to-control differences being reported, compared to the relevant theoretical standard deviations of the presumed purely ideal-statistical variations.

(I emphasize “ideal-statistical” because, as explained below, Abaluck et al. used households of closely interacting family members but then reported individual-based results, which vitiates the underlying theoretical assumptions of “independent, uncorrelated and random” in all the (ideal) statistical calculations of uncertainties and confidence intervals.)

From this sample size (170 K), there were approximately 13.5 K individuals in each arm who were reported to have developed “COVID-like symptoms” within the measurement time of the study: 13,273 (7.62%) (treatment), 13,893 (8.62%) (control). The control-treatment difference of 620, is significant since it is 5 times greater than the ideal-statistical standard deviations of the numbers prior to taking their difference, sqrt(13.5 K).

The numbers of symptomatic individuals having positive serology test results, and their treatment-control differences, however, are much smaller. Abaluck et al. (2021) chose not to report these numbers but instead reported only “symptomatic seroprevalence” (SSP), as percentages, after accounting for the rates (~40 %) of consent to the blood test (RCB): 0.68 % (treatment), 0.76 % (control).

I work backwards from their numbers to calculate the numbers of symptomatic individuals having positive blood test results, as follows:

Treatment arm:

178,288 participants  x  0.0068 (SSP)  x  0.408 (RCB)  =  495 (2σ≈44) symptomatic seropositive individuals

→Scaled to the same population as the control → 455 (2σ≈41)

Control arm:

163,838 participants  x  0.0076 (SSP)  x  0.399 (RCB)  =  497 (2σ≈45) symptomatic seropositive individuals

These formulas are correct if my contextual interpretation of the following (ambiguous) passage is correct: “Omitting symptomatic participants who did not consent to blood collection, symptomatic seroprevalence was 0.76% in control villages and 0.68% in the intervention villages. Because these numbers omit non-consenters, it is likely that the true rates of symptomatic seroprevalence are substantially higher (perhaps by 2.5 times, if non-consenters have similar seroprevalence to consenters).”

The difference, 497 – 495 = 2 individuals, is the number giving rise to Abaluck et al.’s difference in absolute symptomatic seroprevalence (SSP) of 0.0008. As such, given the expected sources of bias and measurement errors described herein, and given the size of this difference of only two (2) events, the SSP difference on increased masking in the treatment arm, reported by Abaluck et al., cannot be taken as anything but unreliable.

The difference of “2 individuals” is 10 times smaller than the approximate ideal-statistical standard deviations (1σ) of the numbers prior to taking their difference, for comparable size starting populations. This should give anyone pause.

If I pursue the calculation to obtain a prevalence ratio (PR), including 95 % confidence intervals,

PR  =  455 [414, 496]  ÷  497 [452, 542]  =  0.92 [0.80, 1.04],

which is not statistically different from 1, and which gives a false impression of being borderline significant, from the purely ideal-statistical perspective.

Abaluck et al. report their results as: “Adjusting for baseline covariates, the intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence by 9.3% (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00]; control prevalence 0.76%; treatment prevalence 0.68%).”

In fact, their bold assertion of a relative reduction in SSP of “9.3%”, without stating its ideal-statistical error, while ignoring all other-than-ideal-statistical errors, is a fiction.

It is also misleading for Abaluck et al. to present their percent relative reduction in SSP with two significant numbers (as “9.3%”): without “adjustment”, I calculate a percent relative reduction in SSP ((497 – 455)/497) of 8.4 % ± 12.2 % (2σ), which is consistent with zero.

Oldest age group, 60+ years old, surgical masks only

In their most surprising result, Abaluck et al. (2021) report a statistically significant three-significant-digit “34.7 %” relative decrease in symptomatic seroprevalence (from 1.03 % to 0.69 %, from control to treatment) among the 60+ years old age cohort, for surgical masks only in the treatment arm (their Figure 3).

Among other reasons, this result is surprising because all the many (>10) policy-grade randomized controlled trials (RCT) with lab-verified outcomes, for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory diseases, have found no statistically significant benefit from either surgical or N95 masks, in terms of transmission and infection. I have reviewed this context here: (Rancourt, 2021) (Rancourt, 2020a) (Rancourt, 2020b) (Rancourt, 2020c).

It is difficult to evaluate the said most surprising result of Abaluck et al. because the authors do not provide:

• the numbers of 60+ year olds in each group (control vs treatment with surgical masks)
• the fraction of distributed surgical masks to all distributed masks, in treatment-arm 60+ year olds
• the numbers of symptomatic 60+ year olds in each group (control vs treatment with surgical masks)
• the rate of consent to the blood test (RCB) in each group (control vs treatment with surgical masks)

On 13 September 2021, I emailed Dr. Abaluck directly and asked for these and other numbers of individuals: “… Basically, I am asking to know these 30 most basic numbers, only a few of which are already provided in your article. Can you or one of your co-authors provide these?” Dr. Abaluck responded the same day, as: “We will be posting replication instructions publicly in a few weeks and you’ll be able to see all the data. If you can’t find it in 3 weeks or so, please feel free to reach out again.”

I note that Abaluck et al. (2021) do not provide ideal-statistical error estimates (confidence intervals) for any of their symptomatic seroprevalence numbers, for any group or arm. This leaves me with an impression of avoiding reporting estimated statistical uncertainties; while dealing solely with group to group differences and group to group relative changes of seroprevalence values having unreported error estimations.

Without the numbers for the 60+ year olds, it is impossible to definitively verify ideal-statistical uncertainty in the said most surprising result. Nonetheless, the needed uncertainties can be estimated using what is provided, by making reasonable assumptions for the missing information, as follows.

For this purpose: I assume the same RCB for 60+ year olds (control, surgical masks) as for all adults in the same arm. I assume that 16 % of adults in all groups are 60+ year olds (The World Factbook, for Bangladesh, 2020). I assume that 66.7 % of 60+ year olds receiving masks received surgical masks, equal to the cross-randomization fraction on a village basis (200/300).

I then estimate the numbers of symptomatic 60+ year olds having positive blood test results, as follows:

Treatment group, 60+ year olds, surgical masks:

178,288 participants  x  0.16 (fraction 60+)  x  0.667 (faction surgical masks)  x  0.0069 (SSP)  x  0.408 (RCB)

=  54 (2σ≈15) symptomatic seropositive 60+ year olds, surgical masks

→Scaled to the same population as the control → 74 (2σ≈21)

Control group, 60+ year olds:

163,838 participants  x  0.16 (fraction 60+)  x  0.0103 (SSP)  x  0.399 (RCB)

=  108 (2σ≈21) symptomatic seropositive 60+ year olds, control

Thus I estimate that the two comparable numbers of symptomatic seropositive 60+ year old individuals overlap within their 95 % confidence intervals (74 [53, 95] (treatment); 108 [87, 129] (control)), from purely ideal-statistical considerations.

As a check, my numbers give a prevalence ratio (PR), 60+ year olds, surgical masks:

PR  =  74 [53, 95] (treatment) ÷ 108 [87, 129] (control)  =  0.69 [0.45, 0.92],

which is close to the “adjusted” PR reported by Abaluck et al.:

aPR  =  0.65 [0.46, 0.85].

Whereas this PR (aPR) for 60+ year olds and surgical masks has an appearance of being mathematically valid, it is not reliable, for the following reasons:

1. The confidence interval is from purely ideal-statistical considerations. It is from the counting uncertainties alone, under ideal applicability assumptions. The main mathematical assumption is that each event or detection (of symptomatic seropositivity) is independent and random.
2. The actual (here estimated) absolute numbers of events or detections are small (54 and 108) and are therefore all the more susceptible to large errors from all sources, not just purely ideal-statistical counting errors. The smaller the cohorts, the greater the chance of contamination by unknown “baseline” factors, and the harder it is to secure a “balanced” comparison.
3. Observational bias error in reporting symptoms is expected, as explained above (impression of higher safety, unblind observers).
4. There is a built-in bias for resilience against infection in the treatment group, as explained above, which is expected to be strong, and is predicted to be strongest in the most elderly (stress-immune relation).
5. There is an insufficiently large blood-testing rate of consent (RCB, ~40 %), such that the non-randomized consent itself is therefore susceptible to bias.
6. The laboratory test is not specific to SARS-CoV-2, is not validated for Bangladesh, and is susceptible to large occurrences of “undetermined” or “equivocal” readings, as explained above, all of which make it susceptible to bias in whatever it is detecting or not detecting.
7. Many factors may be highly imbalanced between the treatment and control arms, which are not known or controlled in the study. These factors include infections, conditions or pathologies that have possible or likely cross-reactivity in the serology test, as explained above. This potential is probably higher in the most elderly, who are often afflicted with several co-conditions.
8. There is a large (50 %) imbalance in “baseline symptomatic seroprevalence rate”: 0.00002 (treatment), 0.00003 (control) (their “Table 1: Balance Tests (Individual-Level)” and “Table A3: Balance Tests (Village-Level)”). Abaluck et al. do not explain “rate” or discuss or attempt to interpret this apparently fundamental difference. This imbalance may indicate different immune histories or different immune health of the individuals or different pathogenic environments in the control and treatment arms.
9. There may be unaccounted or unknown correlations or clustering that vitiate the assumption of ideal-statistical independence and randomness. For example, a 60+ year old may have a higher-than-otherwise (higher than random) probability of being symptomatic seropositive if another 60+ year old in the same household is or recently was symptomatic seropositive, and so on. After all, the study includes all adults per participating household, rather than the common/standard study design of having independent participants. (This means that the method of calculation of confidence intervals for this study design, looking at individuals, is itself strictly invalid; as are all individual-base prevalence and prevalence-ratio results.)
10. There may be hidden co-factors that produce COVID-like symptoms and give cross-reactivity in the serology test. The door is wide open for this possibility since the COVID-19 symptoms are rather generic and the serology test is far from having been evaluated to be specific for SARS-CoV-2, as show above. The small absolute numbers of events or detections (54 and 108) allow such co-factors (one or several) to be accidentally different to a large extent in the two groups.
11. Symptomatic seropositivity for COVID-19 was not confirmed by clinical diagnosis; and symptomatic seroprevalence (SSP) was not validated by hospitalization data or mortality or prescription data or absenteeism, etc. Abaluck et al. give no information about number and severity of symptoms, but instead use a binary threshold of “symptomatic”. What was comparative symptomatology (severity, etc.) in the small numbers for the two groups (54 and 108)?

Conclusion

The Abaluck et al. (2021) study is an extreme case in which a Bayesian analysis of the impact of foreseeable potential bias and measurement uncertainty would confirm that their results are false, but the sophisticated demonstration is hardly necessary (Ioannidis, 2005) (Greenland, 2006).

In technical language, it is a case of “garbage in, garbage out”, not to mention the fundamental design flaws including using households while extracting individual-base results, and applying impactful super-treatment interventions to the treatment arm.

If this is the new “gold-standard clinical trial” (according to Nature) then the value of gold has plummeted to that of lead.

And see: Appendix A.

*

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 first published on denisrancourt.ca.

Denis G. Rancourt, PhD is a Researcher at Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca).

Sources

Abaluck et al. (2021) “The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh”. Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). 01 September 2021. Working Paper, dated 31 August 2021. https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh — or — https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/egcenter-discussion-paper-series/1086/

Ader and Cohen. (1993) “Psychoneuroimmunology: Conditioning and Stress”. Annual Review of Psychology1993 44:1, 53-85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8434895/

Cohen et al. (2007) “Psychological Stress and Disease”. JAMA, 298(14), pp. 1685–1687. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.14.1685. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17925521/

Cohen et al. (1997b) “Social Ties and Susceptibility to the Common Cold”. JAMA, 277(24), pp. 1940–1944. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540480040036. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9200634/

Cohen et al. (1997a) “Chronic Social Stress, Social Status, and Susceptibility to Upper Respiratory Infections in Nonhuman Primates”. Psychosomatic Medicine: May/June 1997 – Volume 59 – Issue 3 – p 213-221. https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Chronic_Social_Stress_Social_Status_and_Susceptibility_to_Upper_Respiratory_Infections_in_Nonhuman_Primates/6613937/files/12106595.pdf

Cohen et al. (1991) “Psychological Stress and Susceptibility to the Common Cold”. New England Journal of Medicine. Massachusetts Medical Society, 325(9), pp. 606–612. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199108293250903. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1713648/

Dhabhar. (2014) “Effects of stress on immune function: the good, the bad, and the beautiful”. Immunologic Research. 2014 May; 58(2-3): 193-210. doi: 10.1007/s12026-014-8517-0. PMID: 24798553. (cited >800) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12026-014-8517-0

FDA (Test Performance, 2021) “EUA Authorized Serology Test Performance”. Content current as of: 08/18/2021; accessed on 14 September 2021. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance

FNLCR (2021) “Serology Test Evaluation Report for “SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA” from InBios International Inc.”. Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research. 13 July 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/presentations/maf/maf3315-a001.pdf

Greenland. (2006) “Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: I. Foundations and basic methods, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 35, Issue 3, June 2006, Pages 765–775, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi312

InBios (IFU LBL-0113-03, 2021) “InBios – SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA – Instructions for Use”. InBios/FDA.COVE-G EUA/CE SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA. Insert Part No. 900255-03. Effective Date: 05/19/2021. https://inbios.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LBL-0113-03-EUA-CE-SCoV-2-Detect-IgG-ELISA-product-insert-English.pdf

Ioannidis. (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Islam et al. (2013) “An epidemiological overview of malaria in Bangladesh”. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2013 Jan-Feb;11(1):29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2013.01.004. Epub 2013 Feb 21. PMID: 23434288. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/naz/files/epidemiology_malaria_bangladesh_travel_med_inf_dis_2013.pdf

Kaufman et al. (2021) “Insights from Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin G Serology Test Results from a National Clinical Laboratory, United States, March–July 2020”. Population Health Management, 24(S1), S35–S42. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2020.0256 —- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7875137/

Peters et al. (2021) “To stress or not to stress: Brain-behavior-immune interaction may weaken or promote the immune response to SARS-CoV-2”. Neurobiology of Stress, Volume 14, 100296. ISSN 2352-2895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2021.100296.

Prenderville et al. (2015) “Adding fuel to the fire: the impact of stress on the ageing brain”. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(1), pp. 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2014.11.001. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25705750/

Rancourt. (2021) “Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021”. ResearchGate. 22 February 2021. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14294.37448. https://archive.vn/0L5ji

Rancourt. (2020a) “Measures do not prevent deaths, transmission is not by contact, masks provide no benefit, vaccines are inherently dangerous: Review update of recent science relevant to COVID-19 policy”. ResearchGate. 28 December 2020. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21706.18885. https://archive.ph/F5xqy

Rancourt. (2020b) “Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: “A growing body of evidence””. ResearchGate. 03 August 2020. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25042.58569. https://archive.ph/BjUhB

Rancourt. (2020c) “Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy”. ResearchGate. 11 April 2020. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14320.40967/1. https://archive.ph/RuA5z  (article history)

Sapolsky. (2005) “The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health”, Science, 29 April 2005, vol. 308, pages 648-652. DOI: 10.1126/science.1106477. https://www.pinniped.net/sapolsky2005.pdf

Usher-Smith et al. (2016) “The spectrum effect in tests for risk prediction, screening, and diagnosis”. BMJ2016; 353 :i3139 doi:10.1136/bmj.i3139. https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i3139

Yadouleton et al. (2021) “Limited Specificity of Serologic Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection, Benin”. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(1):233-237. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2701.203281

Featured image is from howstuffworks

---

Appendix A: Media reviews of the Abaluck et al. (2021) mask study

A few features made me suspicious of the Abaluck et al. (2021) study. The first was the high octane media campaign, followed by my noting the presence of clearly false statements in the media articles.

Another was the self-serving and incomplete description of the context of face mask efficacy studies, made by the authors themselves, in-effect ignoring all existing policy-grade trials that find no detectable advantage to mask wearing, in terms of transmission and infection. Abaluck et al. summarise as: “Inspired by the growing body of scientific evidence that face masks can slow the spread of the disease and save lives [refs], we conducted…”; and they never attempt to reconcile their surprising results with the existing science.

I infer that Abaluck et al. may self-justify in-effect ignoring all past work by distinguishing “source control” and “protective effect” of face masks? They sate: “First, unlike technologies with primarily private benefits, mask adoption is likely to yield especially large benefits at the community-level.” This concept of “the one-way mask” is not based of any empirical evidence of actual person-to-person transmission. It also seems contrary to mechanistic expectations. If masks filter relevant particles, then they should filter them in both directions, both inhaling and exhaling. Exhaling is towards the outside environment, whereas inhaling is directly towards the respiratory tract tissue that is the target of the pathogen. If face masks are “one-way” then it should be the other way.

Here is a sample of the media reports:

— Nature | News | 09 September 2021 | “Face masks for COVID pass their largest test yet”

Face masks protect against COVID-19. That’s the conclusion of a gold-standard clinical trial in Bangladesh, which backs up the findings of hundreds of previous observational and laboratory studies.[ref].

Critics of mask mandates have cited the lack of relevant randomized clinical trials, which assign participants at random to either a control group or an intervention group. But the latest finding is based on a randomized trial involving nearly 350,000 people across rural Bangladesh. The study’s authors found that surgical masks — but not cloth masks — reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in villages where the research team distributed face masks and promoted their use.

“This really should be the end of the debate,” says Ashley Styczynski, an infectious-disease researcher at Stanford University in California and a co-author of the preprint describing the trial. The research “takes things a step further in terms of scientific rigour”, says Deepak Bhatt, a medical researcher at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, who has published research on masking. …

— Stanford Medicine | News Center | 01 September 2021 | “Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows”

The findings were released Sept. 1 on the Innovations for Poverty Action website, prior to their publication in a scientific journal, because the information is considered of pressing importance for public health as the pandemic worsens in many parts of the world.

“We now have evidence from a randomized, controlled trial that mask promotion increases the use of face coverings and prevents the spread of COVID-19,” said Stephen Luby, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford. “This is the gold standard for evaluating public health interventions. Importantly, this approach was designed be scalable in lower- and middle-income countries struggling to get or distribute vaccines against the virus.”

— The Washington Post | 01 September 2021 | “Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say”

The authors of a study based on an enormous randomized research project in Bangladesh say their results offer the best evidence yet that widespread wearing of surgical masks can limit the spread of the coronavirus in communities.

The preprint paper, which tracked more than 340,000 adults across 600 villages in rural Bangladesh, is by far the largest randomized study on the effectiveness of masks at limiting the spread of coronavirus infections.

Its authors say this provides conclusive, real-world evidence for what laboratory work and other research already strongly suggest: mask-wearing can have a significant impact on limiting the spread of symptomatic covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.

“I think this should basically end any scientific debate about whether masks can be effective in combating covid at the population level,” Jason Abaluck, an economist at Yale who helped lead the study, said in an interview, calling it “a nail in the coffin” of the arguments against masks.

— NBC News | 01 September 2021 | “Largest study of masks yet details their importance in fighting Covid-19”

A study involving more than 340,000 people in Bangladesh offers some of the strongest real-world evidence yet that mask use can help communities slow the spread of Covid-19.

The research, conducted across 600 villages in rural Bangladesh, is the largest randomized trial to demonstrate the effectiveness of surgical masks, in particular, to curb transmission of the coronavirus. Though previous, smaller studies in laboratories and hospitals have shown that masks can help prevent the spread of Covid, the new findings demonstrate that efficacy in the real world — and on an enormous scale.

“This is really solid data that combines the control of a lab study with real-life actions of people in the world to see if we can get people to wear masks, and if the masks work,” said Laura Kwong, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the co-authors of the study.

— Berkeley Public Health | 01 September 2021 (undated) | “Largest study of its kind finds face masks reduce COVID-19”

Wearing face masks, particularly surgical masks, is truly effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 in community settings, finds a new study led by researchers from Yale University, Stanford Medical School, the University of California, Berkeley, and the nonprofit Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). …

“These results suggest that we could prevent unnecessary death and disease if we get people to wear high-performance masks, such as surgical masks, in schools, workplaces, shopping centers, places of worship and other indoor spaces,” said study co-author Laura Kwong, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

— The Atlantic | 04 September 2021 | “The Masks Were Working All Along”

Now we have definitive proof that masks really are effective.

… Their conclusion? Masks work, period. Surgical masks are particularly effective at preventing coronavirus transmission. And community-wide mask wearing is excellent at protecting older people, who are at much higher risk of severe illness from COVID‑19.

— Yale Daily News | 13 September 2021 | “First randomized trial on masking affirms efficacy, Yale study says”

… The 300,000-person study was the first randomized trial on mask efficacy.

Yale professors of economics Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak and Jason Abaluck, alongside a team of researchers from Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley, conducted a cluster-randomized trial in rural Bangladesh that tested the intervention of community-level masking promotion from November 2020 to April 2021. …

“A lot of conversation around mask usage previously had been that there had never been a randomized, controlled trial that demonstrated that masks were effective in both interrupting and preventing disease,” said Stephen Luby, professor of infectious diseases at Stanford University and a coauthor of the study. “This really was a gold standard trial and was able to demonstrate just that.”

— WebMD Health News | 07 September 2021 | “Large Study Confirms Masks Work to Limit COVID-19 Spread”

The study demonstrates the power of careful investigation and offers a host of lessons about mask wearing that will be important worldwide. …

“What we really were able to achieve is to demonstrate that masks are effective against COVID-19, even under a rigorous and systematic evaluation that was done in the throes of the pandemic,” said Ashley Styczynski, MD, who was an infectious disease fellow at Stanford University when she collaborated on the study with other colleagues at Stanford, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), a large research and policy nonprofit organization that currently works in 22 countries.

My competence to review science about COVID-19

I am a former tenured Full Professor of Physics, University of Ottawa, Canada. Full Professor is the highest academic rank. During my 23-year career as a university professor, I developed new courses and taught over 2000 university students, at all levels, and in three different faculties (Science, Engineering, Arts).  I supervised more than 80 junior research terms or degrees at all levels from post-doctoral fellow to graduate students to NSERC undergraduate researchers.  I headed an internationally recognized interdisciplinary research laboratory, and attracted significant research funding for two decades. 

I have been an invited plenary, keynote, or special session speaker at major scientific conferences some 40 times. I have published over 100 research papers in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, in the areas of physics, chemistry, geology, bio-geochemistry, measurement science, soil science, and environmental science.

My scientific h-index impact factor is 41, and my articles have been cited more than 5,000 times in peer-reviewed scientific journals (profile at Google Scholar).

My personal knowledge and ability to evaluate the facts in this article are grounded in my education, research, training and experience, as follows (see this): 

1. Regarding environmental nanoparticles. Viral respiratory diseases are transmitted by the smallest size-fraction of virion-laden aerosol particles, which are reactive environmental nanoparticles. Therefore, the chemical and physical stabilities and transport properties of these aerosol particles are the foundation of the dominant contagion mechanism through air.  My extensive work on reactive environmental nanoparticles is internationally recognized, and includes: precipitation and growth, surface reactivity, agglomeration, surface charging, phase transformation, settling and sedimentation, and reactive dissolution.  In addition, I have taught the relevant fluid dynamics (air is a compressible fluid), and gravitational settling at the university level, and I have done industrial-application research on the technology of filtration (face masks are filters).
2. Regarding molecular science, molecular dynamics, and surface complexation. I am an expert in molecular structures, reactions, and dynamics, including molecular complexation to biotic and abiotic surfaces. These processes are the basis of viral attachment, antigen attachment, molecular replication, attachment to mask fibers, particle charging, loss and growth in aerosol particles, and all such phenomena involved in viral transmission and infection, and in protection measures. I taught quantum mechanics at the advanced university level for many years, which is the fundamental theory of atoms, molecules and substances; and in my published research I developed X-ray diffraction theory and methodology for characterizing small material particles.
3. Regarding statistical analysis methods. Statistical analysis of scientific studies, including robust error propagation analysis and robust estimates of bias, sets the limit of what reliably can be inferred from any observational study, including randomized controlled trials in medicine, and including field measurements during epidemics. I am an expert in error analysis and statistical analysis of complex data, at the research level in many areas of science. Statistical analysis methods are the basis of medical research. 
4. Regarding mathematical modelling. Much of epidemiology is based on mathematical models of disease transmission and evolution in the population. I have research-level knowledge and experience with predictive and exploratory mathematical models and simulation methods. I have expert knowledge related to parameter uncertainties and parameter dependencies in such models.  I have made extensive simulations of epidemiological dynamics, using standard compartmental models (SIR, MSIR) and new models.
5. Regarding measurement methods. In science there are five main categories of measurement methods: (1) spectroscopy (including nuclear, electronic and vibrational spectroscopies), (2) imaging (including optical and electron microscopies, and resonance imaging), (3) diffraction (including X-ray and neutron diffractions, used to elaborate molecular, defect and magnetic structures), (4) transport measurements (including reaction rates, energy transfers, and conductivities), and (5) physical property measurements (including specific density, thermal capacities, stress response, material fatigue…).  I have taught these measurement methods in an interdisciplinary graduate course that I developed and gave to graduate (M.Sc. and Ph.D.) students of physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and engineering for many years. I have made fundamental discoveries and advances in areas of spectroscopy, diffraction, magnetometry, and microscopy, which have been published in leading scientific journals and presented at international conferences.  I know measurement science, the basis of all sciences, at the highest level.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

This past weekend we published a report from the FDA’s Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting on Pfizer COVID-19 booster shots held on Friday, September 17, 2021, where dissenting doctors and researchers were able to present material showing how dangerous the COVID-19 vaccines are, going against the current corporate media narrative that has worked hard to suppress this data. See: BOMBSHELL: FDA Allows Whistleblower Testimony that COVID-19 Vaccines Are Killing and Harming People!

One of the presenters in that open session was Steve Kirsch, the Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, who stated that “expert analysis” revealed that over 150,000 people have died in the U.S. following a COVID-19 injection.

Well it appears that the “expert analysis” he was referring to was from Dr. Jessica Rose, who was also present at this committee meeting, and I included her 2 minute presentation as well in our report and in the video we compiled.

Dr. Jessica Rose has a BSc in Applied Mathematics and completed her MSc in Immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. She completed her PhD in Computational Biology at Bar Ilan University and then did her first Post Doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Molecular Biology.

I have retrieved the report she compiled which is located here, and I am reproducing it below as well. The Abstract states:

Abstract: Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be used to estimate the number of  excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. A simple analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the current COVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021.

If you are thinking that this is a simple analysis by using published comments from the past about what the percentages are for under-reporting vaccine adverse reactions, you would be making a false assumption.

This is maybe the most brilliant analysis of the VAERS data I have seen so far. What Dr. Rose did was take an independent analysis of a single VAERS event, one that the FDA and CDC admitted was an adverse reaction based on trials before the shots were even authorized, anaphylaxis, and then looked at independent studies reporting the rate of anaphylaxis to determine the true percentage, compared to what is actually being reported in VAERS.

What she found was that anaphylaxis was being under-reported in VAERS by 41X. Taking that variable and then applying it to other events, such as death, she arrived at the 150,000 death figure. See the full analysis below.

If this is a truer estimate of how many people are dying in the U.S. following COVID-19 shots, that means millions are dying worldwide due to these shots over the last 9 months.

Besides the plethora of anecdotal stories that we and others are reporting of formerly healthy people dying shortly after receiving a shot, one area where these massive amounts of deaths may show is in the labor force. Since so many employers are mandating these shots as a condition for employment, we would expect there to be massive labor shortages around the world as a result of these deaths.

And in fact, that is exactly what we are seeing, and the forecast for the immediate future is that these labor shortages are just going to get worse as now the U.S. has mandated that all federal employees and employees of companies employing more than 100 people must mandate a COVID-19 shot as a condition for employment, which means they will now reduce the labor force among the unvaccinated, just after the vaccinated have had massive casualties already negatively impacting the labor pool.

This is a global disaster that is probably unparalleled in human history!

Your Food Prices Are at Risk as the World Runs Short of Workers

by Bloomberg

Whether it’s fruit pickers, slaughterhouse workers, truckers or waiters, the world’s food ecosystem is buckling due to a shortage of staff.

Across the world, a dearth of workers is shaking up food supply chains.

In Vietnam, the army is assisting with the rice harvest. In the U.K., farmers are dumping milk because there are no truckers to collect it. Brazil’s robusta coffee beans took 120 days to reap this year, rather than the usual 90. And American meatpackers are trying to lure new employees with Apple Watches while fast-food chains raise the prices of burgers and burritos.

Whether it’s fruit pickers, slaughterhouse workers, truckers, warehouse operators, chefs or waiters, the global food ecosystem is buckling due to a shortage of staff. Supplies are getting hit and some employers are forced to raise wages at a double-digit pace. That’s threatening to push food prices — already heated by soaring commodities and freight costs — even higher. Prices in August were up 33% from the same month last year, according to an index compiled by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. (Full story.)

So if we are facing labor shortages already due to a high rate of deaths and injuries from those who already received a COVID-19 shot, what is going to happen when we see massive layoffs of the unvaccinated in the next few weeks? Some police departments are already stating that they could lose up to half their force as so many officers would rather quit than take the shot.

What do you think is going to happen to the nation’s hospital system where many nurses who have refused the COVID-19 shots have already said they are willing to be fired when these mandates kick in?

I have been criticized by some for using the word “millions” in this article we published earlier this month: Crisis in America: Millions of Veteran Nurses are Resigning or Being Fired Over COVID Vaccine Mandates

But I am NOT exaggerating or using hyperbole when I use that word. Do the math people!!

There are about 4 million registered nurses in the U.S., about another million certified LPN/VPNs, close to another million CNAs, and then all the nursing assistants and other nurse support staff.

The corporate media in most locations are reporting that anywhere from 20 to 50% of these nursing employees are refusing the COVID-19 shots, while the nurses themselves claim that numbers are much higher, in some instances as high as 80% that are refusing the shots.

Remember, many of these work on the frontlines in ICUs and ERs, and so they KNOW how many people are actually dying and being injured by these shots, and it is totally reasonable that a large percentage of them value their own lives more than their jobs.

There are already reports of overcrowding in the nation’s ICUs, and the criminal health agencies are trying to blame this on the “unvaccinated” which is absurd!

As of last Friday, VAERS is reporting over 60,000 hospitalizations and over 80,000 visits to ERs following COVID-19 shots, and if the VAERS data is being under-reported by a factor of 41X, that means the real numbers are closer to 2.5 million hospitalizations, and 3.3 million trips to the ER following COVID injections.

We are looking at a potential worldwide major catastrophe facing us in the weeks ahead. See: We are Living Through the Greatest Scam and Cover-up in Human History – Are You Prepared for What Comes Next?

Here is Dr. Jessica Rose’s excellent research. Remember, this was submitted to the FDA and CDC and is now a matter of public record.

***

Estimating the number of COVID vaccine deaths in America

by Jessica Rose, Mathew Crawford

Abstract: Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be used to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines. A simple analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the current COVID vaccines as of Aug 28, 2021.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database is the only pharmacovigilance database used by FDA and CDC that is  accessible to the public. It is the only database to which the public can voluntarily report injuries or deaths following vaccinations. Medical professionals and pharmaceutical manufacturers are mandated to report serious injuries or deaths to VAERS following vaccinations when they are made aware of them. It is a “passive” system with uncertain reporting rates. VAERS is called the “early warning system” because it is intended to reveal early signals of problems, which can then be evaluated carefully by using an “active” surveillance system.

The VAERS database can be used to estimate the number of deaths caused by the COVID vaccines using the following method:

1. Determine the significant adverse event under-reporting multiplier by using a known significant adverse event rate
2. Determine the number of US deaths reported into VAERS
3. Determine the propensity to report significant adverse events this year
4. Estimate the number of excess deaths using these numbers
5. Validate the result using independent methods

Determining the VAERS under-reporting multiplier

One method to discover the VAERS underreporting analysis can be done using a specific serious adverse event that should always be reported, data from the CDC, and a study published in JAMA. Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and occurs in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States based on events reported to VAERS according to the CDC report on Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. Anaphylaxis is a well known side effect and doctors are required to report it. It occurs right after the shot. You can’t miss it. It should always be reported.

A study at Mass General Brigham (MGM) that assessed anaphylaxis in a clinical setting after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines  published in JAMA on March 8, 2021, found “severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10,000” people fully
vaccinated. This rate is based on reactions occurring within 2 hours of vaccination, the mean time was 17 minutes after vaccination. This study used “active” surveillance and tried not to miss any cases.

When asked about this, both the CDC and FDA sidestepped answering the question. Here’s the proof at the CDC(see page 1 which incorporates the CDC response to the original letter on pages 2 and 3).

As noted in the letter, this implies that VAERS is underreporting anaphylaxis by 50X to 123X. The CDC chose not to respond to the letter.

Is the anaphylaxis under reporting rate a good proxy for reporting fatalities? Since anaphylaxis is such an obvious association, one could argue that the rate would be a lower bound. Others would argue that deaths are more important and would be more reported than anaphylaxis.

We don’t know, but it doesn’t matter because this is just an approximation to get to a ballpark figure. In general, most of us think It is therefore entirely reasonable to assert that deaths are reported even less frequently than anaphylaxis since deaths are not as proxmate to the injection event.

The MGH study used practically identical criteria as CDC used in its study to define a case of anaphylaxis. We ran the numbers ourselves and confirmed this.Therefore, a conservative estimate (giving the government the greatest benefit of the doubt) would use 50X as the underreporting rate.

However, after the MGH study was published, one doctor pointed out that doctors were more careful to avoid anaphylaxis; there was more careful screening of people likely to have anaphylaxis, and they were advised to see their allergist and take more precautions prior to
vaccination. This sort of thing would overstate the numbers above.

So we ran the numbers BEFORE the JAMA study appeared and got a more conservative estimate.

Here’s the data from Google (which uses World In Data):

We’ve vaccinated 97.5M people from the start thru March 2021 and there were 583 reports in VAERS who had an anaphylaxis reaction on their first dose. This suggests that the underreporting rate is 41X.

Other estimates such as How Underreported Are Post-Vaccination Serious Injuries and Deaths in VAERS? suggests a 30X factor based on VAERS.

However, this used a serious adverse event rate from the Pfizer Phase 3 study which we believe under-reported these events for three reasons:

1) the patients were much healthier than average with a 10X lower rate of cardiac arrest than the general public (for example),

2) it was hard to report adverse events if you were in the trial (the evidence of this was unfortunately deleted when Facebook removed the vaccine side effect groups), and

3) there was known malfeasance in the reporting of adverse events in the 12-15 year old trial where the paralysis of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay was never included in the trial results and the FDA and CDC refused to investigate and the mainstream media would not report on it.

The point of this paper is not to find the exact number of deaths, but merely to find the most credible estimate for deaths. We think that anaphylaxis is an excellent proxy for a serious adverse event that, like a death, should always be reported so we think 41X is the most accurate number.

Our hypothesis is that this number will be applicable to deaths as well. In order to confirm our hypothesis, we must derive the death count in different ways and see if we come up with the same answer.

When used for less serious events, such as a headache, it’s likely that 41X is going to be low since such events are less likely to be reported. So our hypothesis is that 41X is a safe, conservative factor useful for both serious and less serious adverse events.

Determining the number of US deaths

As of August 27th, 2021, a search of the VAERS database shows that there are 7,149 domestic deaths in the VAERS database (US/Territories/Unknown).

Estimate the propensity to report for 2021

Healthcare providers have been required by law to report serious adverse events in VAERS with passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986.

Therefore, nothing has changed this year vs. previous years:

1. no new legal requirements,
2. no noticeable promotion or incentives to report into VAERS.

Even when there are strong promotions to report adverse events as there was with H1N1 in 2009 where there were serious campaigns to raise the visibility of reporting, this didn’t impact the background fatality event reporting: it didn’t go up at all in 2009 and 2010 as can be seen from the graph below.

In short, it is extremely difficult to materially change the propensity to report serious adverse events into the VAERS system; it is remarkably consistent from year to year. This makes sense: old habits die hard… behaviors are hard to change. And there was nothing “new” this year to incentivize a massive change in behavior.

Look at the weekly data below. The massive increase in reporting pretty much happened almost instantaneously as soon as the vaccines started rolling out. And it was proportional to the rollout. That is not how behavioral change works… behavioral change would happen very  lowly over time; especially if you are trying to get doctors to change their long term behaviors. The reporting basically followed the rollout of  the vaccine. Doctors were more likely to report to VAERS this year because there were simply more events to report. We have verified that by talking directly to the doctors as the reason they are reporting more for these vaccines.

To double check our hypothesis that the propensity to report is unchanged this year, we ran VAERS queries using symptoms unrelated to those impacted by the vaccines. We ruled out any known comorbidities like diabetes and obesity since these would likely be elevated since there are more adverse events.

We found that the reporting rates for these unrelated events (listed in the table below) are no different this year than in previous years and for some of these events, the reporting rate is dramatically lower. Note that the number in the 2015-2019 column is the total for the 5 years, not an average annual amount. The Rate Increase is an X factor (i.e., A/B*5)

A third way to see that 2021 isn’t simply over-reporting normal background adverse events is to look at the “adverse event (AE) footprint” of the vaccine. You do that by listing adverse events on the X-axis and AE counts on the Y-axis. If there is over-reporting this year, the overall outline of the boxes will be exactly the same as previous years, and they will just be higher due to the higher propensity to report the same types of events. As you can see, that is not the case here.

This vaccine is definitely causing a completely different “shape” of severe adverse events. Here we show 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.

For a more detailed set of vaccine fingerprints (COVID vs. other vaccines), see these charts from Jessica Rose.

A fourth way to confirm there wasn’t over-reporting is through informal physician surveys.

In our informal physician surveys we saw a bias to under-report serious adverse events in order to make the vaccines look as safe as possible to the American public since most physicians believe they are hurting society if they do anything to create vaccine hesitancy.

Secondly, we’d estimate that at least 95% of physicians have completely bought into the “safe and effective” narrative and thus any event that they observe they deem as simply anecdotal and don’t bother to report it since it couldn’t have been caused by such a safe vaccine that appeared to do so well in the Phase 3 trials.

Determining the number of excess deaths caused by the COVID vaccines

There are three ways to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the vaccine. Using these three methods we can estimate the low and high likely bounds for the number of excess deaths caused by the vaccine:

1. Subtract the average number of background deaths in previous years
2. Use 86% based on the analysis in the Mclachlan study
3. Use 40% based on the estimate of Dr. Peter Schirmacher one of the world’s top pathologists

Here is the result we get from the three methods:

In the first method, we used 500 background deaths as normal for a year since the propensity to report is the same this year as in previous years as shown earlier. However, we should assume that the age cohort is older this year than previous years. For example, here are the vaccination rates shown in a CDC report for influenza:

So a conservative estimate is to take the <500 deaths per year and increase it by 50% to more than account for a shift to higher ages so subtract 750 background deaths.

In the second method, McLachlan examined 250 VAERS reports in detail and concluded that up to 86% of the deaths were consistent with the vaccine being causal for the death. We use the higher number, because using a lower number makes no sense since it leads to a background death rate that would be excessive compared to previous years (.14*7149 = 1,000 which is already higher than the 500/yr background death rate).

The third method uses estimates made by Dr. Peter Schirmacher, one of the world’s top pathologists, for the % of deaths examined by autopsy within 2 weeks of the vaccine that were clearly caused by the vaccine.

The range was from 30% to 40% and we used the high end of the range since we believed that in making a potentially career-ending revelation such as this that Dr. Schirmacher was being extremely conservative and only estimating what he was 100% certain of proving.

40% is likely very conservative since Norway was under no such reputational pressure and in the the first 13 bodies they assessed, 100% of the deaths were found to be caused by the vaccine (see Norwegian Medicines Agency links 13 deaths to vaccine side effects). Therefore using a 60% number seems relatively conservative (less than the 65% average of 30 and 100).

Therefore we have a range of death estimates from 148,000 to 216,000 deaths which averages to 182,000 deaths.

Validation using other methods

In order to validate that our estimates are reasonable (or simply that the evidence was more likely consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine does more harm than good), we looked at four different quantitative methods from very small to very large and summarized their estimates in the table:

There are additional qualitative methods that show a large number of deaths. The point of these method is to show that the FDA assumption that “the vaccines are safe and all of the reports in VAERS are background events” is not even close to being true.

Example 5: The pericarditis data below shows that the number of events for these vaccines are anything but safe: they generate  myocarditis/pericarditis at 860 times the rate of the typical flu vaccine in a year.

A friend of ours got pericarditis right after getting the influenza vaccine when she was 30 years old. It took her two years to recover. The heart muscle never really regenerates like other organs unfortunately.

Example 6: A total of 23 deaths have been reported in connection with the corona vaccination to the Norwegian Medicines Agency. Of those, 13 deaths were linked to the vaccine’s side effects. The other 10 haven’t been evaluated yet. Thus, 100% of the reported deaths have been deemed to be caused by the vaccine. If the vaccine is perfectly safe and has killed no one, then this is statistically impossible. Someone is lying. The fact that there are no autopsies being done in the US in public view suggests that it is more likely that the CDC is lying than the Norwegian Medicines Agency.

Example #7: An analysis of excess deaths in Israel, especially among young people, that was done by Dr. Steven Ohana, clearly shows a huge rise in excess deaths that have no explanation other than the rollout of a mass vaccination program.

Example #8: A published analysis of VAERS data by Dr. Jessica Rose and a more recent analysis of VAERS data done by Christine Cotton show massive numbers of cardiovascular and neurological adverse events occurring within temporal proximity to the injection date.

Example #9: Causality of these adverse events is confirmed using Dose 1 and Dose 2 studies done by Dr. Jessica Rose.

Example #10: If the vaccine is perfectly safe, the number of deaths would be equally likely after the first dose vs. the second dose since both are effectively “non-events.”

Because there are 15% fewer people who get the second dose than the first dose, we should expect the blue bars to be uniformly 15% lower than the red bars. This is not the case here. If the vaccine kills 50% of the 1% most vulnerable people each time it is administered, this can explain the dramatic drop off in events.

Another explanation is that the vulnerable population experienced severe adverse events following Dose 1 and thus chose not to get a second Dose despite the societal pressure (vaccine mandates, peer pressure, etc) to do so.

It is likely a combination of both effects. Here is an example of this from a comment posted to TrialSiteNews on A New Low For the FDA:

Whatever the cause, evidence to support the arisal and reporting of multiple severe adverse events that are dose-related is a very strong safety signal that requires investigation.

Example #11: The same commentary as before applies for cardiac arrest; a safe vaccine should have blue bars on average 15% below the red bars.

Example 12: Absolute numbers of VAERS reports plotted according to “time to death” is very revealing. We don’t know what the exact distribution of timing looks like because this was never measured. But we speculate that maximum accumulation of spike protein is achieved around 24 hours or so after injection and then it plateaus after that point as the mRNA disintegrates. Therefore, we would expect to see a death peak more than 24 hours after injection, i.e., on Day 1 and not on Day 0 This is exactly what happens in practice:

If these were simply random background deaths, we would expect to see a peak on the first day since that has the highest propensity to report, and it would drop from there; it would never peak on Day 1. In the graph above, we plot 8 months of the COVID19 vaccine reports compared to all death reports from all influenza vaccines for the past 10 years combined. So the blue line at 0 is 20 years of death reports, it is not an annual average. In short, the killing power of this vaccine is at least 200X greater than the influenza vaccine and probably a lot more than that since background deaths are included in both red and blue bars.

Furthermore, the shape of the two curves is completely different. The combined flu deaths are relatively flat with a slight rise in the first few days. The COVID vaccine generally kills people very quickly, and then gradually over time from there.

Example 13: A visual way to show that excess deaths are likely caused by the vaccine is to plot vaccinations and deaths on the same axis using data from the COVID-19 data explorer. For Israel we get this chart which shows a correlation between vaccine booster doses given
(cumulative booster doses per 100 people) and average daily deaths per million: they track almost in lock step.

This is hard to explain any other way.

In summary, the qualitative and quantitative confirmation techniques we used were all independent of each other and of our main method, yet all were consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccines cause large numbers of serious adverse events and excess deaths and are inconsistent with the null hypothesis that the vaccines have no effect on mortality and have a safety profile comparable to that of other  vaccines.

We were not able to find a single piece of evidence that supported the FDA and CDC position that all the excess deaths were simply over-reporting of natural cause deaths.

Serious adverse events elevated by the COVID vaccines

We made a table comparing the rate of adverse events this year relative to the annual VAERS incidence rate reported for all vaccines over the period from 2015-2019 for ages 20 to 60.

We limited the age range to show that these events are affecting young people and not just the elderly. Also, the signal to noise ratio is much stronger in this younger age group since they are less likely to suffer “background” adverse events. A value of 473 means the rate reported in VAERS for the COVID19 vaccines in 2021 was 473 times higher than what is typical for all vaccines combined in the typical average year.

Nearly all serious adverse events we looked at were strongly elevated compared to the expected normal baseline event rate. This table is useful when assessing whether the vaccine may have been involved in causing death in cases.

The symptoms listed here are consistent with the presumed mechanism of action for how these vaccines kill people (producing spike protein throughout the body that cause inflammation, scarring, and blood clots).

Surprisingly, only a few of these symptoms appear in the labeling of the recently approved Pfizer vaccine. Thus, this table is important and timely.

Child deaths are consistent with symptoms elevated by the COVID vaccines

Perhaps most troubling of all is child deaths.

The CDC VAERS review of the 12-17 year old data released on July 30, 2021 showed there were 345 cases of myocarditis and 14 deaths. Unlike old people, kids don’t spontaneously die every day at anywhere near the same rate.

Using the table above and investigating each death, all of these deaths where there was sufficient detail in the death report showed that it involved one or more of the symptoms listed in the elevated adverse event table.

14*41 = 574 deaths

There are fewer total child deaths for 17 and under (which is a much wider age range than above) in the entire pandemic.

Therefore, the cost benefit case for children isn’t there.

Lack of a stopping condition

In 1976, they halted the H1N1 vaccine after 500 GBS cases and 32 people died.

However, there is no stopping mortality condition for these vaccines. We are likely at 150,000 deaths and counting and nobody in the mainstream medical establishment, mainstream media, or Congress is raising any concerns.

No member of the medical community is calling for any stopping condition nor autopsies. We find this troubling.

Negative efficacy

This paper shows that the vaccines we received may well shortly become completely useless to protect us and, to make matters worse, might enhance the ability of future variants to infect us due to vaccine enhanced infectivity/replication, rather than “classical” ADE.

In short, even if the vaccine were perfectly safe and killed no one, it’s rapidly becoming a net negative based on efficacy alone.

We are starting to see evidence of this today. UK data destroys entire premise for vaccine push. August 21. 2021. “Again, 402 deaths out of 47,008 cases or 0.855% CFR in fully vaccinated, and; 253 deaths out of 151,054 cases or 0.17% CFR in unvaccinated. If you get Covid having been fully vaccinated, according to this UK data, you are five (5) times more likely to die than if you were not vaccinated!”

All-cause mortality is the single most important thing to focus on and it’s not there

Today, most people focus on the relative risk reduction of the vaccines against infection, hospitalization death from COVID. They pay less attention to the absolute risk reduction from COVID. And they pay no attention at all to the absolute all-cause mortality benefit.

The funny thing is that we should be paying attention to these in the opposite order that we listed them.

All-cause mortality is key. If there is no improvement in all-cause mortality, nothing else matters.

In short, say our vaccine reduces the risk of dying from COVID by 2X. But it came at a cost, e.g., increasing your risk of dying from a heart attack by 4X. And let’s say both events are equally likely (which they aren’t). Then you’ve made a bad decision… you’re more likely to die if
you took the vaccine.

Here are the results from the Pfizer 6-month study:

Discussion of these results is quite a bit more complex than we have space to go into here, but these are the basic stats. For more information, see the 10-page discussion of the Pfizer 6 month trial at Why so many Americans are refusing to get vaccinated.

All the all cause mortality numbers are negative from the 6 month Pfizer study. This is not a surprise: it is caused by the high rates of adverse events we’ve already discussed.

There is no evidence of statistically significant mortality improvement.

If there was the CDC, FDA, and NIH would certainly let us know. But just the opposite happened: when the Pfizer 6 month study came out, the mainstream media and mainstream medical scientists were silent on the lack of all-cause mortality evidence. It didn’t even make it into the abstract. The fact that 4 times as many people were killed by cardiac arrest wasn’t even mentioned.

When you combine (1) the negative efficacy of the vaccine with (2) the negative all-cause mortality benefit, it’s impossible to justify vaccination. Either alone is sufficient to kill the benefit; both of them together makes things even more difficult for recommending vaccination.

The bottom line is clear: If you got the vaccine you were simply more likely to die. The younger you are, the greater the disparity.

Early treatment using repurposed drugs has always been the safer and easier way to treat COVID infections

Early treatment protocols such as those used by Fareed and Tyson have been shown to provide more than a 99% relative risk reduction, work for all variants, and the drugs don’t maim or harm the recipients. It is baffling that we are ignoring these treatments and waiting for more evidence when we have a vaccine which appears to kill more people than it saves, soon will be completely useless against future variants, and is likely going to make things worse for the recipient by enhancing replication and/or infectivity.

There are also a variety of prophylaxis techniques that are simple, safe, and highly effective including. The precautionary principle suggests that if there is evidence from a credible source of the benefits of these treatments (which there are), that doctors.

Because early treatments using repurposed drugs don’t create a measurable risk of death, the all-cause mortality for early treatments is always positive.

Many people assume that vaccination is the only path forward. It isn’t. Allowing people to be infected and develop recovered immunity leads to immunity which is broader against variants and lasts longer. See “Recovered immunity is broader and longer lasting” in this document.

It is instructive to compare Israel with India.

Israel is one of the most vaccinated countries on Earth with 80 percent of citizens above the age of 12 fully inoculated. As of Aug 24, 2021, Israel reported 9,831 new diagnosed cases on Tuesday, a hairbreadth away from the worst daily figure ever recorded in the country—10,000—at the peak of the third wave.

At the same time, India recorded 354 deaths in a day, Israel was reporting 26 deaths and record high cases. Here’s how they stack up:

Obviously, India has 11.6X lower deaths per capita than Israel.

The conclusion is clear, vaccination is not the only solution nor the best solution.

Summary

Using the VAERS database and independent rates of anaphylaxis events from a Mass General study, we computed a 41X under-reporting factor for serious adverse events in VAERS, leading to an estimate of over 150,000 excess deaths caused by the vaccine.

The estimates were validated multiple independent ways.

There is no evidence that these vaccines save more lives than they cost. Pfizer’s own study showed that adverse events consistent with the vaccine were greater than the lives saved by the vaccine to yield a net negative benefit. Without an overall statistically significant all-cause mortality benefit, and evidence of an optional medical intervention that has likely killed over.

150,000 Americans so far, vaccination mandates are not justifiable and should be opposed by all members of the medical community.

Early treatments using a cocktail of repurposed drugs with proven safety profiles are a safer, more effective alternative which always improves all-cause mortality in the event of infection and there are also safe, simple, and effective protocols for prophylaxis.

Download this article as a .pdf here.

Watch Dr. Rose’s other presentation on the VAERS data published in May, 2021: Study: Analysis of VAERS Shows the COVID Shots are Likely Cause of Deaths, Spontaneous Abortions, Cardiovascular, Neurological, and Immunological Adverse Events

*

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 images in this article are from the authors unless otherwise stated

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The diplomatic fallout from the new security agreement between the Australia, United Kingdom and the United States [AUKUS] is just about beginning. The debris will take time to clean up. Might there be some lasting damage?  

It now emerges that not only was no attempt was made to include France in the AUKUS security pact, the old Anglo axis conspired to keep French President Emmanuel Macron in the dark. The Sunday Telegraph reported September 19 that the AUKUS deal was ironed out during the G7 Summit in June at Cornwall, but Macron who was also in attendance was unaware of what was happening behind his back amidst all the bonhomie. 

Macron loses face. The Guardian earlier reported that clandestine discussions on the deal went on for months before in the US, sans Paris’ knowledge. The world’s cameras have caught the stupefaction, fury and depth of emotion of the French. 

Foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has described it as a “stab in the back” that constituted “unacceptable behaviour between allies and partners”. And in a virtually unprecedented step among allies, Macron ordered the recall of the French ambassadors to Washington and Canberra.

Jean-Yves Le Drian told the French TV yesterday,

“There have been lies, there has been duplicity, there has been a major rupture of trust. There has been contempt. So, it is not going well between us, not at all. That means there is a crisis. We are recalling or ambassadors to try to understand but also to show to our former partner countries we have very strong discontent. Really, a serious crisis between us.” 

The repercussions on French-Australian ties will be severe. France is a Pacific power also (unlike Britain), and Canberra’s nearest significant eastern neighbour is the French archipelago of New Caledonia. 

Australia needs the French to secure an EU free-trade agreement. An Australia-European Union FTA, now in the balance, has the potential to open up a market for Australian exporters of almost 450 million people, with a GDP of more than $US15 trillion. 

Officials in Brussels told CNN that the timing of the AUKUS announcement was rude, as the EU’s high representative on foreign affairs was set to deliver his own strategy for the Indo-Pacific on Thursday, conveying the impression that the EU is not taken seriously as a geopolitical player. 

A senior EU official told CNN caustically that this was “English-speaking countries” who are “very belligerent” forming an alliance against China, and these were the same nations who took the lead in invading Afghanistan and Iraq — “And we all know the results.” 

The CNN:

“The EU’s strategy for handling China differs from the US in one major way: the EU actively seeks cooperation with China, and sees it as an economic and strategic partner. Brussels officials believe that by trading and working with China, not only can they lean on Beijing to reform their human rights and energy policies, but also use a good relationship with China to act as a buffer between Beijing and Washington, thus giving the EU a clear and important geopolitical role.” 

It cannot be lost on France and Germany that when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, Washington is willing to spend more political capital and invest in security and defence ties with the UK and Australia before reaching out to EU powers. 

Coming on top of the developments in Afghanistan, where President Biden did not even consult the European allies on his April decision to withdraw troops, the AUKUS announcement can only solidify France’s view that the EU needs the capacity to defend its interests in the Indo-Pacific.  

Equally, the AUKUS highlights that the US’ position toward Australia within the QUAD is very different from that toward Japan and India. 

By the way, the senior administration in Washington who briefed the media on September 15 was asked whether there is scope in future for the US to extend such cooperation to other countries. He replied: 

“I do want to underscore: We see this as a very rare engagement between Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. We’ve done this only once before…  That was almost 70 years ago with Great Britain… This technology is extremely sensitive.  This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects.  I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in other circumstances going forward.  We view this as a one-off.” 

Of course, neither Japan nor India hold such compelling geopolitical relevance for Washington as Australia, which is the hub of America’s Indo-Pacific strategy — with Indian Ocean to its west and Pacific Ocean to its east. Thus, it is equipping Australia with a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines of cutting edge technology to patrol the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific Ocean. 

Although Washington and Delhi may have common interests, they have significant differences as well. India will not completely turn to the US side like Australia. Washington and New Delhi have different political needs in the medium and long term. India would have its ambitions, too. 

AUKUS is bound to be studied carefully in Tokyo and Delhi  and it will affect their strategic choices. Much is still in the dark still about this “enhanced trilateral security partnership” between three “maritime democracies.” Will there be a governing treaty?   

No doubt, the US will aim at building a more solid and broad foundation for its Indo-Pacific Strategy with the AUKUS and the Quad complementing each other. However, within the QUAD framework, Australia stands out now as “more equal” than Japan and India in terms of US willingness to share super sensitive core technologies. Japan and India need to assimilate the “psychological blow”. 

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has made a phone call to his French counterpart. Jaishankar later tweeted,

“Discussed recent developments in the Indo-Pacific and Afghanistan with my friend FM @JY_LeDrian._Looking forward to our New York meeting.” 

It would seem that the British industrial dimension in the submarine project determined the AUKUS partnership. Curiously, Dominic Rabb who as British foreign secretary during the G7 summit had voiced reservations about AUKUS annoying China and France, has since been summarily moved out of the Foreign Office and appointed justice secretary! 

PM Boris Johnson in his remarks on September 15 regarding AUKUS twice highlighted for the benefit of the domestic audience that business interests are involved. As he put it,

“the other opportunities from AUKUS [will be] creating hundreds of highly skilled jobs across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, the north of England, and the Midlands, taking forward this government’s driving purpose of levelling up across the whole country.”

“We will have a new opportunity to reinforce Britain’s place at the leading edge of science and technology, strengthening our national expertise… Now, the UK will embark on this project alongside our allies, making the world safer and generating jobs across our United Kingdom.”  

The UK needs Washington’s approval for the transfer of technology for elements of the nuclear propulsion system and that’s how this probably became a threesome alliance.

However, Australia’s capacity to operate these horribly expensive and powerful defence asset will always be subject to US veto, which means that the whole program will lead inevitably to deeper operational integration with the US. No doubt, Australia is ceding a high degree of its sovereignty. 

Put differently, AUKUS is a big Australian bet on the US policies. What if in three years’ time, someone like Donald Trump enters the White House? This is one thing. 

More important, as veteran Australian author and China scholar Prof. Hugh White noted, AUKUS is “full of risks,” as it “changes the way Australia approaches the region.” 

He said,

“In the escalating rivalry between America and China, we’re siding with the United States and we’re betting they are going to win this one. But the fact is that when we look 10 or 20 years ahead, I don’t think we can assume the United States is going to succeed in pushing back effectively against China.”

*

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: French President Emmanuel Macron (L) and US President Joe Biden enjoy a light moment at the G7, Cornwall, UK, June 12, 2021 (Source: Indian Punchline)

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A few dozen protesters showed up to last weekend’s “Justice for J6” rally in Washington DC, but that did not stop the authoritarian Washington Beltway establishment from spending millions to again turn the area into a fortress, complete with a militarized Capitol Hill Police force and an army of undercover FBI agents. The protesters were easily outnumbered by reporters desperate for another “insurrection” story and by police officers who looked like they were ready for military combat.

Of the reported four people arrested at the event, one turned out to be an undercover FBI agent who was then escorted to “safety” by police after showing his badge. As conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza Tweeted, the comedy of the event was that “there were so many undercover cops they were arresting each other by accident.”

Earlier, former President Trump warned that the rally was a set-up by an FBI, Homeland Security Department, and Capitol Hill Police Department eager for more trophies in their war against “insurrectionists.” He advised people to avoid the event and it appears their advice was taken.

They did not get their “Second Insurrection.” In fact, as we know from the FBI itself, they did not even get their First Insurrection. Though the Left elites continue to use that term, the FBI affirmed last month that there was no organized plan among the January 6th protesters to overturn the presidential election.

The media’s non-stop hysterical reporting about the January 6th “insurrection” – repeated endlessly by Democratic Party politicians – did serve an important propaganda purpose: anyone with concerns about the way the 2020 presidential election was conducted was immediately demonized and silenced.

But to me it seems a little too obvious that Biden backers and their allies in the deep state would hold a fake rally just to set-up more “insurrectionists” to be arrested. It’s possible that they believe conservatives and Trump supporters are dumb enough to walk into a trap – or perhaps another trap – but I find it unconvincing.

Instead, perhaps this rally was in reality a kind of psychological operation. After all, such an exercise would be a win-win for the planners. On one hand if a massive crowd showed up it would give new life to the now-discredited narrative that an attack on “our democracy” more serious than 9/11 (as President Biden laughably claimed) was operating just below the surface of society.

Authoritarians must be able to point to “the enemy” to consolidate their power.

On the other hand, if no one showed up, as it turns out happened, the real organizers could laugh and crow about how support has evaporated for the hundreds originally arrested after January 6th (many still held without bail, but none charged with “insurrection”). And also, they can claim that support for Donald Trump, who for some reason continues to mortally terrify them, has likewise disappeared.

Maybe that’s just a crazy conspiracy theory, but then again anyone claiming just a few weeks ago that Biden would implement a vaccine mandate was also considered a crazy conspiracy theorist.

This failed rally is a success for Team Biden on one front: very few would now dare to hold a rally calling attention to the shocking injustice that continues to stain the prosecution of so many January 6th protesters. But we must not let enemies of justice win. All liberty lovers must speak out for the unfairly persecuted. Even when it’s politically risky. We must not be silent!

*

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: FBI poster seeking information on violence at the Capitol published January 6, 2021 (Source: Public Domain)

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

At the English language election debate Conservative leader Erin O’Toole claimed Canada “led the fight against apartheid” in South Africa. The absurd statement has gone largely uncontested, reflecting a racist, mythologized, view of Canada’s place in the world.

Does anyone believe that Canada was a stronger opponent of White minority rule in South Africa than Ghana? Angola? Tanzania? Kenya? Nigeria? Senegal? Sudan? Jamaica? India? Cuba? How about dozens of other mostly “black” and “brown” nations? Or, for that matter, the “white” Communist bloc?

African countries began calling for the isolation of and sanctions against apartheid South Africa in the late 1950s, with many ordinary Canadians adding their voice to these calls through the 1960s, ’70s and early ’80s.

Ottawa maintained a trade agreement with South Africa between 1932 and 1979. As late as 1978 Canadian weapons were sold to South Africa and Ottawa supported a highly controversial IMF loan to the apartheid regime in 1982. Canada’s ties to apartheid are well documented in The Ambiguous Champion: Canada and South Africa in the Trudeau and Mulroney years, Canada Accomplice in Apartheid: Canadian Government and Corporate Involvement in South Africa, Canadian Relations with South Africa: A Diplomatic History and Trafficking in Apartheid: The Case for Canadian Sanctions.

It was only after decades of Canadian support for apartheid that the Mulroney government responded to domestic and international solidarity movements by adopting (partial) economic sanctions against South Africa in 1986. From October 1986 to September 1993, the period in which economic sanctions were in effect, Canada’s two-way trade with South Africa totaled $1.6 billion – 44 percent of the comparable period before sanctions. Ottawa never cut off diplomatic relations as did Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, and many other countries. To the extent the federal government deserves praise is that it took a more principled position towards the apartheid regime than erstwhile allies London, Israel and Washington. Or, to put it truthfully, Canada was the best of a bad lot.

O’Toole’s statement is not simply historically inaccurate. It’s racist as it erases predominately Black countries’ opposition to white minority rule in South Africa. O’Toole’s comment is only plausible if one adheres to a deeply Anglo-American worldview, which dominates Canadian political culture.

Tellingly, none of the party leaders contested O’Toole’s outlandish statement during or after the debate (they challenged other inaccurate comments). Nor did any media, from what I could tell, question O’Toole’s claim. Apparently, erasing Black and Brown countries leadership in the fight against South African apartheid is without political cost in Canada.

The non-reaction to O’Toole’s absurd comment also highlights foreign policy mythmaking among politicians. MPs basically never say anything critical of Canadian foreign policy history but often reference a supposed noble historical moment. As I previously pointed out, “it’s as if there’s a sign hanging in Parliament that says: ‘foreign policy mythologizers only’”.

O’Toole’s comment at the debate followed a discussion of Afghanistan that implied Canada’s disastrous 13-year war there was well-meaning. All the party leaders complained that more of those who supported us (the good guys) in Afghanistan weren’t helped out of the country. But none of the five party leaders raised questions about torture, airstrikes, nighttime assassination raids or those who pushed Canada to war. Nor was there any recognition that the Taliban’s victory reflected widespread dislike with the foreign occupation.

All four of the opposition party leaders (O’Toole, Annamie Paul, Yves-François Blanchet and Jagmeet Singh) swiftly transitioned from a non-debate on Afghanistan to criticizing the Liberals for not standing with the Muslim Uighur minority in western China. While the Organization of Islamic States and most majority Muslim nations have eschewed attacking China for mistreating the Uighurs, Washington has launched an international campaign to defend their rights. Yet the US has killed millions in majority Muslim Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan over the past two decades. Similarly, thousands of Muslims were killed by Canadians in Afghanistan and Libya while Ottawa provides innumerable forms of support to Israel as it dispossesses or kills Muslims in its religious conquest. But Canadian politicians want us to focus on China’s mistreatment of Muslims!

In another sign of the opposition parties ‘target China’ ideology, the Conservatives and NDP criticized the Liberals for not being part of the new US, Britain and Australia (AUKUS) military partnership. AUKUS will deepen military ties between the world’s leading empire, former hegemon and its prototypical settler colonial outpost in a bid to contain China’s rise. Opposition politicians want Canada to be part of this latest effort to increase tensions with the world’s most populous country. But they ignore any impact these moves have on the international cooperation required to mitigate the existential threat posed by climate change.

When it comes to foreign policy Monday’s vote has little upside. A Conservative victory would probably make things worse but all the parties with a chance of winning seats in Parliament share a fundamentally racist, mythological view of Canada’s place in the world.

*

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 is from the author

COVID Vaxx Certificates — Borderless Genocide

By Peter Koenig, September 20, 2021

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.

“It Wasn’t IS-K”: US Military Admits that Hellfire Missile Strike on Kabul Was a “Mistake” – But US Often Does Not Know Whom It Is Droning

By Prof. Juan Cole, September 20, 2021

The Associated Press reports that the survivors of family members killed in a U.S. hellfire missile strike on a civilian vehicle after US troops and Afghan evacuees were killed at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul are not satisfied with the apology issued by the U.S. military. They want compensation.

COVID Vaccines Bloody Travesty: From Shots to Clots

By Joel S. Hirschhorn, September 20, 2021

People face a difficult decision on whether or not to take an experimental or even approved COVID vaccine for the first time or as a booster shot. So much information tells the ugly story of people who have suffered illness or death because they were not vaccinated.

9/11 and Afghanistan Post-Mortems: Lessons in Safe Logic

By Edward Curtin, September 20, 2021

In the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the 20^th anniversary of the mass murders of September 11, 2001, the corporate mainstream and alternative media have been replete with articles analyzing the consequences of 9/11 that resulted in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its alleged withdrawal after two decades of war.

India State of 241 Million People Declared COVID-free after Government Promotes Ivermectin

By Infowars.com, September 20, 2021

The state of Uttar Pradesh in India, which has the equivalent of two-thirds of the United States population, has been declared COVID-free, the state government announced last week.

Bombshell: FDA Allows Whistleblower Testimony that COVID-19 Vaccines Are Killing and Harming People!

By Brian Shilhavy, September 20, 2021

The FDA held a Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting yesterday (September 17, 2021) to discuss authorizing a third Pfizer COVID-19 “booster shot.”

Political Commentator Kim Iversen Unpacks ‘Alarming and Shocking’ COVID Data from Israel

By Children’s Health Defense, September 20, 2021

Political talk show host Kim Iversen, who has been closely following COVID vaccine data in multiple countries, walks viewers through the data from Israel suggesting the vaccines are failing.

Somewhere Over the Afghan Horizon, U.S. Drones Still Fly

By Dr. Edward Hunt, September 20, 2021

Facing unrelenting criticism over the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden Administration is insisting that the United States will maintain a capability to launch airstrikes in Afghanistan, regardless of the legal limitations and possibility of perpetuating the war.

Video: Has Justin Trudeau Been Duly Vaccinated? Registered Nurse Expresses Doubt on Authenticity of Trudeau’s Vaccine Jab

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 20, 2021

No Landmarking was implemented, the alleged nurse in the video above is doing it with one hand. “Nobody does it that way”. Landmarking applied to inoculations is defined as “an area or point on a soft tissue used as a point of reference for measurements of the body or its parts.”

The Significance of the Nuremberg Code: The Universal Right of Informed Consent to Medical Interventions

By Alliance for Human Research Protection, September 20, 2021

The universal right of Informed Consent to medical interventions has been recognized in US law since at least 1914. That year, the New York Court of Appeals established the right to informed consent to medical intervention in a case involving non-consensual surgery.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Associated Press reports that the survivors of family members killed in a U.S. hellfire missile strike on a civilian vehicle after US troops and Afghan evacuees were killed at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul are not satisfied with the apology issued by the U.S. military. They want compensation.

Zemerai Ahmadi was pulling his car up to his home’s driveway when the missile struck it, killing him and children who were running out to greet him. Ahmadi was well known as a driver for a charitable cause and no explosives were in the vehicle, contrary to U.S. military assertions.

The chief of America’s Central Command, Gen. Frank McKenzie, said the strike was a “tragic mistake.” But for weeks his office had insisted that IS-K militants had been in the car.

The incident underlines the dangers of conducting counter-terrorism remotely with missile and drone strikes.

It is not a new problem.

Back in 2015, under the Obama administration, the US military struck two buildings in Afghanistan suspected of being terrorist safe houses and killed two Western hostages being kept there.

In the aftermath, the generals were forced to admit that they often had no idea whom they were targeting with such drone strikes on targets such as buildings. That is, they might know the facilities were frequented by terrorists. But at the time of the strike on a faceless edifice they could not be sure there were no women or hostages or other noncombatants inside.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that about a fourth of those killed in Afghanistan by President Obama’s drone strikes were civilians.

I commented at that time,

“Death by drone is inherently lawless. There is no constitutional or legal framework within which the US government can blow people away at will. For a while in the 1970s through 1990s, assassination was outlawed. Now it is back, but has taken this freakish form where bureaucrats thousands of miles away fire missiles from large toy airplanes. The US is not at war with Pakistan, so this action is not part of a war effort. You can’t be at war with an organization– a state of war has a technical legal definition.”

The few remaining cheerleaders for the Afghanistan War depict it as a sort of humanitarian mission. But civilian casualties from massive and continual US bombing raids on the country increased 330% from 2017, according to the BBC citing the Costs of War Project at Brown University. The rising death toll was owing to Trump having relaxed the rules of engagement.

The Military Times writes of Afghanistan,

“According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command, U.S. aircraft dropped 7,423 munitions in 2019 — that’s the highest number of bombs released in nearly a decade.

In 2018, U.S. warplanes dropped 7,362 bombs — the second highest total in a year thus far since AFCENT began publishing the number of munitions released in Afghanistan.

In 2010 and 2011, the height of America’s participation in Afghan war, coalition aircraft dropped 5,100 and 5,411 bombs respectively.”

That is an enormous tonnage of explosives to drop on a poor, rural country annually, and it had been getting worse.

The Wall Street Journal reports that many Afghans in rural areas have heaved a huge sigh of relief since the US departure, because now their villages are not being routinely bombed as the US targeted Taliban in the boondocks.

*

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.

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page

Featured image is from Informed Comment

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

People face a difficult decision on whether or not to take an experimental or even approved COVID vaccine for the first time or as a booster shot.

So much information tells the ugly story of people who have suffered illness or death because they were not vaccinated.

But there are also increasing stories of breakthrough infections despite vaccination.  Why? Because these vaccines are not working very well.

Just as important as declining vaccine effectiveness over time is the increasing evidence of direct harm from vaccines.  Their safety is not what government agencies proclaim.  And getting booster shots just raises vaccine harm issues.

It has become increasingly clear that natural immunity obtained from prior COVID infection is better than vaccine immunity.  The ideal solution is not getting vaccine shots, but seeing treatment protocols as vaccine alternatives.

How can people make good, informed decisions about the vaccines?  Especially those who have refused to capitulate to the coercion and propaganda.  This article provides good information about blood clots and bleeding that have injured and killed many people worldwide.

People will not get solid information on vaccine induced blood problems from mainstream big media.

If you only consider statistics about the number of people benefitting from vaccines versus lower numbers experiencing bad side effects, you might dismiss the negatives in favor of the positives.  But one significant uncertainty is about longer-term negative vaccine impacts that may impact millions of vaccinated people.

This article provides a compelling account of COVID vaccine dangers.  If you get a shot, you are gambling that you will not fall victim to it.  The quandary is whether that gamble is worth taking.

Here you will get well researched summaries of key recently published research on two types of observed blood clots – microscopic and relatively large size – that merit serious attention and concern.  Also, the views of esteemed medical experts are provided.  One inevitable conclusion is that government agencies, with support from big media and the medical establishment, are not doing ensuring truly informed consent by those taking vaccine shots.

Regarding the experimental COVID vaccines, Dr. Francis Christian made this important observation: “I have not met a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed and who then understands the risks of this vaccine or its benefits.”  Based on all data on COVID deaths, it is crystal clear that for nearly all people, less than about 70 years old, the risks outweigh the benefits.

Understanding Medical Terms And Research

The medical literature is difficult to read and understand, especially with regard to blood problems associated with COVID vaccines.  To gain a useful understanding of vaccine risks it is useful to appreciate medical terms being used.

An informative article is by Dr. Veronica Hackethal from April. It noted that:

“The European Medicines Agency has said that, as of April 20, there have been 287 reports of rare blood clots with low platelets after administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine, eight with Johnson & Johnson, 25 with Pfizer, and five with Moderna.  The clots are notable because some have occurred in unusual and deadly locations in the veins that drain the brain (known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) and the abdomen (known as splanchnic vein thrombosis).”  Note that all the major vaccines were cited.

What to focus on is the problem of very low platelet levels in the body that can cause abnormal bleeding, termed thrombocytopenia, especially deadly brain bleeds.  Two processes cause this condition.  Platelet clearance is an autoimmune process; the body’s immune system is out of control and eats up platelets; this is called immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).  Second, is platelet consumption that converts blood platelets into clots in the body.

The most widely used medical term is now “vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia” (VITT).  Thrombotic refers to clots.  Thrombocytopenia refers to low platelet levels.  Note the use of vaccine-induced to classify this medical condition with unusual clots reported after shots of experimental COVID-19 vaccines.  VITT is a consumptive process similar to an autoimmune condition.  Some people are trying to avoid this term because it explicitly refers to a vaccine problem.

Another term sometimes used instead of VITT is thrombocytopenia with thrombosis syndrome (TTS).  It avoids the use of vaccine-induced.

If you try and follow the medical literature you will see that for VITT, scientists have identified an autoantibody called platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibody that promotes clotting and eventually low platelet levels and bleeding; it can be measured.  This can be tested for.

Two other terms that can be encountered are cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and splanchnic [abdominal] vein thrombosis (SVT).

Recently, another medical term is being used.  It is acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP).  TTP has long been a genetic autoimmune disease that used to be very deadly.  Acquired is used to signify a result of COVID vaccination.

The US National Library of Medicine defines TTP as “a rare disorder that causes blood clots (thrombi) to form in small blood vessels throughout the body; small is very important because the presence of microscopic clots will be focused on below.  These clots can cause serious medical problems if they block vessels and restrict blood flow to organs such as the brain, kidneys, and heart.”  TTP can be fatal or cause lasting damage, such as brain damage or a stroke, if it’s not treated right away.

Eminent Dr. V. Zelenko Sees The Problem

In a recent article on the dangers of COVID experimental vaccines the experienced and pioneering physician Dr Zelenko addressed the blood problem.  He acknowledged that blood clots have been recorded as a side effect of the shots.  He explained that when a person is injected with the vaccines, the body turns into a protein spike factory, generating billions of spikes that travel to the “endothelium,” that line blood vessels, damaging blood cells and causing blood clots.  More specifically, he explained that if this occurs in the heart, it is likely to result in a heart attack, and if it happens in the brain, it may result in a stroke.  “So, we’re seeing the number one cause of death in the short term, is from blood clots, and most of it is happening within the first three, four days,” he said.

He also made the important point that

“Naturally induced immunity [from a prior COVID infection] is a billion times more effective than artificially induced immunity through vaccines.  So why, why would I vaccinate someone with a poisoned death shot that makes inferior or dangerous antibodies when I already have healthy antibodies?” he argued.

So correct.  Millions of people have protective natural immunity that governments are not giving the same credit as they give to vaccine immunity.

Reports Of Blood Cases

Reports have come from Israel on aTTP resulting from experimental COVID shots.   A major hospital center reported 4 cases in a month, while there are typically 2-3 cases a year.  All of the new victims received a COVID vaccine within 5 to 28 days.  Also reported was that there are “similar cases in Belgium and Italy.”  In Israel the Pfizer experimental vaccine has been linked to the increased cases of aTTP.

This aTTP term may be attractive to authorities because unlike the more widely used term VITT it does not explicitly invoke a COVID vaccine, but the nature of aTTP is similar to VITT with the exception being the emphasis on small clots.

Another report from Israel made these observations: “More than 30 percent of Covid-19 patients suffer from blood clots, which create lethal blockages in the lungs, kidneys, heart and brain.  Dr. Abd Al-Roof Higazi, head of the Division of Laboratories and Department of Clinical Biochemistry at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, has found the mechanism that causes the clots.  Higazi and colleagues published a paper last year in the American Society of Hematology journal Blood about the peptide Alpha-defensin.

They discovered that this peptide speeds up the creation of blood clots and prevents their disintegration.  This background helped them understand what was happening to Covid-19 patients because existing anticoagulant drugs don’t impact Alpha-defensin.

‘We took blood samples from 80 patients in Hadassah’s Outbreak Department and found a high concentration of Alpha-defensin,’ said Higazi.  ‘The sicker the person, the higher the concentration of this peptide.’”

A medical paper has just been published on one case of aTTP linked to the Pfizer experimental vaccine.  It was noted that “The patient received a second dose of [Pfizer] mRNA vaccine one week before the onset of concerning symptoms.”  No other cause of the infliction was found.  With advanced medical treatments the patient survived.  Noted was that “the trigger of TTP was presumed to be recent vaccination.”

A case was recently reported in South Korea: “A 21-year-old female college student died one week after receiving the first Pfizer jab in late August.  The family reported no underlying health conditions.  Apparently, when found dead in her apartment, she had purple spots on her body.”  Such purple spots are often concluded to result from blood bleeds due to a loss in platelets.

Two cases of vaccine induced problems in the US were recently reported:

“A 17-year-old basketball player from Utah suffered deadly blood clots on the inside and outside of his BRAIN almost immediately after getting a Covid inoculation, which doctors discovered when his parents brought him to the hospital with severe neck swelling and intolerable headaches.  The boy could not even move his neck without using his hands.  His mother said he was perfectly healthy before that vaccine.  And a man in Colorado said the Moderna vaccine made him develop two blood clots in his left leg.”

Six deaths out of 28 blood clot cases were reported by Yale University for the J&J vaccine in the US  Also noted was that these were a particularly rare and dangerous blood clot in the brain, known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), because it appears in the brain’s venous sinuses.  Also noted was that there were abnormally low platelet levels in their blood, an unusual situation also found for those impacted by the AstraZeneca vaccine.  As noted previously, platelets are used to form blood clots.

Early Florida death after vaccination was a horrible story.  Back in February, a case of serious blood bleeding killed a healthy, young physician and it merits attention because at that early time the blood problem issue had surfaced.  The Florida doctor died; here are highlights from a major news story.

“Just three days after he received the Pfizer vaccine, Dr. Gregory Michael, 56, of Miami Beach developed symptoms for immune thrombocytopenia, a rare blood disorder that stops the creation of platelets, which are necessary for clotting.  … he spent two weeks in the hospital where he died from a brain hemorrhage.”  His wife disclosed that he entered the emergency room with a platelet count of zero and that he was immediately admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of “acute ITP caused by a reaction to the COVID vaccine.”  He died from a brain bleed reasonably blamed on his vaccine shot.

This too was noted in the news story:

“Others who got the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine also seemed to have developed the same disorder.  Luz Legaspi, 72, woke up to find bruises on her arms and legs and bleeding blisters in her mouth just a day after receiving her first dose of the Modern vaccine.  When she went to a New York City hospital, she was similarly diagnosed with the same blood disorder.”

Her life was saved because her doctors used a different treatment that increased her platelet count from zero to 6,000, to 40,000 and to a healthy 71,000 within days.

The point is that there was very early proof of vaccine induced blood problems soon after the start of shots.  The story noted that “37 people have developed such a disorder.”  Now considerable evidence reveals that the low platelet problem is caused by blood clotting.

Importantly, there was another news story also in February that noted:

“At least 36 people may have developed a rare blood disorder, known as immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), after taking either Pfizer and BioNTech or Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines.”  Also reported was that CDC said “No cases of thrombocytopenia were reported during the trials of either Moderna’s or Pfizer’s vaccines.”  Trials that were rushed.

As you read on, keep in mind that the vaccine blood problem emerged soon after COVID experimental vaccines began being used.  But months later the government and public health system has largely ignored the blood problem as has big media.

Blood Problems In Infected But Asymptomatic People

A new article made good points about people who been infected but seemingly suffered no harm, but still had blood problems with potential longer term consequences.

“Thrombosis Journal and other publications have described several cases of blood clots in the kidneys, lungs, and brains of people who hadn’t had any symptoms.  When these gel-like clumps get stuck in a vein, they prevent an organ from getting the blood it needs to function—which can lead to seizures, strokes, heart attacks, and death.”

There have been relatively few of these case reports—and it’s unclear whether some patients might have had other underlying issues that could have caused a clot.  But the Washington State researchers who reported on one case of renal blood clot write that it “suggests that unexplained thrombus in otherwise asymptomatic patients can be a direct result of COVID-19 infection, and serves as a call to action for emergency department clinicians to treat unexplained thrombotic events as evidence of COVID-19.’’

This is why there is no reason to trust vaccine testing over a short time to demonstrate safety.

Image on the right is from NewsVoice

Canadian Physician Reports High Levels Of Microscopic Clots

Dr Charles Hoffe has been practicing medicine for 28 years in a small, rural town in British Columbia, Canada, and recently gave a long interview.  He has given about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA vaccine to his patients.  So, contrary to some critics, he is no anti-vaccine doctor; at least was not originally.

The core problem he has seen are microscopic clots in his patients’ tiniest capillaries.  He said

“Blood clots occurring at a capillary level.  This has never before been seen.  This is not a rare disease.  This is an absolutely new phenomenon.”

Most importantly, he has emphasized these micro-clots are too small to show up on CT scans, MRI, and other conventional tests, such as angiograms, and can only be detected using the D-dimer blood test.  This is a standard test that indicates whether blood clots are being actively formed somewhere within a person’s vascular system.

Using the latter, he found that 62 percent of his patients injected with an mRNA shot were positive for clotting, not a small fraction that can be easily dismissed.  He has explained what is happening in bodies.  The spike proteins in the vaccine become “part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium.  This means that these cells which line your blood vessels, which are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly now have these little spikey bits sticking out.  … when the platelet comes through the capillary it suddenly hits all these COVID spikes and it becomes absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form to block that vessel.”  Medically, these clots are likely to deplete platelets.

He made an important distinction:

“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc.  The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan.  They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test…The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate.  When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.”

This is his pessimistic, scientific view:

“blood vessels in their lungs are now blocked up.  In turn, this causes the heart to need to work harder to try to keep up against a much greater resistance trying to get the blood through your lungs.  This is called pulmonary artery hypertension – high blood pressure in the lungs because the blood simply cannot get through effectively.  People with this condition usually die of heart failure within a few short years.”

All these strong medical views have been suppressed by big media., but it was covered well in another alternative news site.  And the doctor got some attention by submitting an open letter to the provincial Ministry of Health.  A key point in that was this:

“It must be emphasised, that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease.  These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu.  Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.”

Canadian Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario, in June made an important point.  Namely, once in circulation, the spike protein can attach to specific ACE2 receptors that are on blood platelets and the cells that line blood vessels.

 “When that happens it can do one of two things: it can either cause platelets to clump, and that can lead to clotting.  That’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines. It can also lead to bleeding.”  He proclaimed: “releasing the experimental mRNA COVID vaccines has been a ‘big mistake’ — and the long-term health consequences are ‘scary.’”

The concept of micro blood clots has also been invoked by others for the serious impacts of COVID itself.

The eminent Dr. Peter McCullough noted

“So, this is a very different type of blood clotting that we would see with major blood clots in the arteries and veins.  For instance, blood clots involved in stroke and heart attack.  Blood clots involved in major blood vessels in the legs.  This was a different type of clotting and in fact the Italians courageously did some autopsies and found micro blood clots in the lungs. And so, we understood in the end, the reason why the lungs fail is not because the virus is there.  It is because micro blood clots are there.  … When People can’t breathe, the problem is micro-blood clotting in the lungs.  …The spicule on the ball of the of the virus itself which damages blood vessels that causes blood clotting.”

He has also openly stated that none of the COVID vaccines are safe for most people at little risk from COVID.

If spike protein is the cause of micro blood clots in COVID it is also reasonable to see the same phenomenon in vaccinated people impregnated with spike proteins that move throughout the body, as Dr. Hoffe explained.

As to clots throughout the body consider what NIH has said:

“The clots can limit or block the flow of oxygen-rich blood to the body’s organs, such as the brain, kidneys, and heart.  As a result, serious health problems can develop.”

As to the Canadian situation, The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in July estimated the rate of vaccine-related blood clotting in Canadians who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine and said there have been 27 confirmed cases to date in Canada, with five deaths among those cases, a rather high death rate.

Northwell Health Hospitals Study

This published study in May presented many disturbing facts about blood problems.  Here are highlights from this study of COVID patients in hospital from March through May 2020.

“There’s anywhere from a three to fivefold risk of blood clots compared to the pre-COVID era,” said Alex Spyropoulos, a professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, which is a part of the New York hospital system Northwell Health. “I’ve never seen this type of blood clot risk in my life.”

Spyropoulos said

“this study shows for the first time that heightened risk of blood clots persists after patients leave the hospital…It takes a long time for immune mechanisms to calm down…The inflammatory system and the immune system and the coagulation system don’t know that the patient has left the hospital.”

The study followed nearly 5,000 patients after they left the hospital.  About 13 percent of the subjects were treated with blood thinners as a preventative measure.

“We targeted high risk groups,” Spyropolous said.  The major finding on the solution side was “postdischarge anticoagulants, mostly at prophylactic dosages, reduce the risk of major thromboembolic events and death by 46 percent.”

Importantly, the doctor noted that COVID seems to trigger the formation of what are called pulmonary microthrombi, or small clots that form in the blood vessels of the lungs.  Exactly the point made by Dr. Hoffe in Canada.  In other words, spike proteins could act the same way in COVID victims and in vaccinated people.

“Classically, we would be able to scan for evidence of blood clots in the legs with an ultrasound, or in the lungs with a CT scan…It’s much harder to diagnose the microthrombi without an autopsy—and by some estimates, 60 to 100 percent of people hospitalized with COVID have some kind of clotting event when they die,” Spyropoulos said.

Nor surprisingly, this important study and findings received no big media coverage.  Though COVID patients were considered, the results have major implications for blood problems resulting from vaccines because spike proteins are the culprits in both cases.

Indeed, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a retired professor, microbiologist and infectious disease and immunology specialist has explained that spike proteins are the probable cause of so many blood clots throughout the vascular system that your coagulation system is exhausted, resulting in bleeding (hemorrhaging) and thrombocytopenia — low platelet count.  His point was that this has been reported in severe COVID-19 cases and vaccinated individuals alike.  He noted that:

“It is known that these spike proteins, the moment they touch platelets, they activate them and that sets the whole clotting system going.”

There is a major the need for autopsies in those whose deaths are linked to vaccines.

Dr. Ryan Cole – Proof Of Blood Clots From A Pathology Expert

There is a very important video of an August presentation by the highly credentialed and experienced pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole on the topic “What the vaccine spike protein does to the body.”  This video shows a large number of medical slides of different kinds of tissues in COVID vaccine victims obtained typically from autopsies.  Dr. Cole shows many examples of microscopic blood clots in key tissues, such as from lungs.

His detailed work strongly supports what Dr. Hoffe has found and discussed.

Very Important New UK Research On VITT

This month the esteemed medical journal The Lancet published a long, detailed study that verified VITT associated with experimental COVD vaccines pose more serious medical impacts than brain bleeds not caused by vaccines.  Here are some highlights from this article.

“A new syndrome of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) has emerged as a rare side-effect of vaccination against COVID-19.”

The study examined detailed medical records of “95 patients, 70 had VITT and 25 did not.”  All had brain blood problems.

Here is the key finding:

“The primary outcome of death or dependency [hospital staff needed] occurred more frequently in patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis (33 [47 percent] of 70 patients) compared with the non-VITT control group (four [16 percent] of 25 patients; p=0·0061).  … More patients died during admission in the VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis group (20 [29 percent] of 70 patients) than in the non-VITT group (one [4 percent] of 25 patients; p=0·011).”

Again, a significant result – seven times worse rate of deaths for the vaccine induced blood problem.

The big conclusion: “Cerebral venous thrombosis is more severe in the context of VITT.”  In other words, brain blood clots were worse in VITT patients.

The median time interval between vaccination and cerebral venous thrombosis symptom onset was 9 days in patients with VITT and 11 days in those without VITT.  Worse outcomes happened faster in VITT patients.

The patients in this study were all vaccinated on or before April 30, 2021, and before this date most individuals vaccinated in the UK were aged 45 years or older.

The main conclusion was: “VITT appears to be a very rare side-effect of vaccination with the (AstraZeneca) vaccine, the risk of which is likely to be greatly outweighed by the benefit of vaccination against COVID-19 for most people.”  This positive view of COVID vaccines is what is normally voiced by those in the medical establishment.  Perhaps they fear repercussion from research funders and, possibly, rejection by medical journal editors.  Are your personal risks worth your personal benefits?

More New UK Research

A new article from UK researchers identified 170 definite and 50 probable cases of VITT.  All the patients had received the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine and presented 5 to 48 days (median, 14) after vaccination.  The age range was 18 to 79 years (median, 48), with no sex preponderance.  Importantly, there were no identifiable medical risk factors, meaning the cause was surely a result of the vaccine.  From March to June 2021 overall mortality was 22 percent.  But that death rate increased to 73 percent among patients with platelet counts below 30,000 per cubic millimeter [normal platelet count ranges from 150,000 to 450,000] and intracranial hemorrhage.  An important finding was that VITT was blamed on the production of anti-PF4 antibodies after exposure to vaccine components.

Here are some details about the clots found in patients.  Half had clots in the cerebral veins (commonly complicated by secondary intracranial hemorrhage) [brain bleeds].  And more than a third had clots in the deep veins of the legs and in lung arteries.

The researchers indicated rather high rates of VITT among the vaccinated, with the AstraZeneca product, namely at least 1:100,000 among adults, ages 50 or older, and at least 1:50,000 for younger people.  Or, considering the huge numbers of people vaccinated, they translate to 1,000 per 100 million and 2,000 per 100 million, respectively.  These are high rates of often deadly VITT.  But keep in mind that many people may be dying from blood problems but no test or autopsy done to verify cause by a vaccine.

[Compare these to figures from May of 400 blood problems per 100 million reported by UK’s regulator Medical and Health Regulatory Authority (MHRA) and 1,000 cases per 100 million doses reported by Germany.]

Commenting on this new study, Rajiv Pruthi, of the Mayo Clinic urged the U.S. to “remain vigilant” even if the AstraZeneca vaccine is not authorized for use by the FDA.  “Clinicians who are seeing patients with low platelets, headaches, blood clots coming in, regardless of the vaccine they got, should consider [VITT],” he said.  Very good advice that the public should be aware of.

An April article “Towards Understanding [AstraZeneca] Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT)” by the esteemed German physician and researcher Andreas Greinacher and colleagues detailed the mechanisms causing inflammation and blood problems.  “In summary, our study provides a mechanism by which an adenoviral vector vaccine can trigger an immune response leading to highly reactive anti-PF4 antibodies [causing] prothrombotic consequences.”  Their work also pertains to the J&J vaccine.  In May CDC acknowledged that 28 people ages 18 to 59 who got that vaccine developed blood clots.

Expertise Of Former Pfizer Executive

In June former Pfizer executive Dr. Michael Yeadon added his voice of deep expertise on vaccines to the blood clot issue.

“These covid vaccines are not safe,” he said.  “The gene based design makes your body manufacture virus spike protein, and we know and we’ve known for years that virus spike protein triggers blood clots,” Yeadon explained. “That’s a fundamental problem.”

Dr. Yeadon revealed the astronomically high adverse events from the vaccine alone should have shut them down.

“Young people are not susceptible to covid-19.  They’re not at risk,” Dr. Yeadon said. “It’s a crazy thing then to vaccinate them with something that is actually 50 times more likely to kill them than the virus itself.”

Dr. Yeadon said the CDC VAERS system has reported roughly 5,000 vaccine deaths in the first six months of 2021.

“Normally there’s 200 a year for all vaccines combined,” he said.

“I’m very pro vaccines,” Yeadon said. “My biggest beef with the [COVID] vaccines include serious concerns about safety.  They have not been sufficiently tested,” he explained. “They were approved for emergency use fraudulently, in my view, because they shouldn’t do it if there are safe and effective medicines.  And there are.  They have just been hidden.”

Yeadon said hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, and inhaled steroids are all safe and effective at treating the coronavirus.

Each was suppressed by Dr. Fauci, the scientific establishment, and the media. That is exactly the truth.  Truth suppressed to promote use of COVID vaccines.

Research From Doctors For COVID Ethics

A July medical research article by two distinguished physicians, Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bhakdi associated with the group Doctors for COVID Ethics examined the original research done for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.  Here are highlights from this important paper.

“The dangers of the COVID-19 vaccine spike protein and its interactions with the human immune system, conferring risks of clotting and leakage of blood vessels, are becoming increasingly well known.  But how far and wide in the body can such dangers spread?  What does that mean for vaccine safety?”

“We summarize the findings of an animal study which Pfizer submitted to the Japanese health authorities in 2020, and which pertained to the distribution and elimination of a model mRNA vaccine.  We show that this study clearly presaged grave risks of blood clotting and other adverse effects.  The failure to monitor and assess these risks in the subsequent clinical trials, and the grossly negligent review process in conjunction with the emergency use authorizations, have predictably resulted in an unprecedented medical disaster.”

“Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers: blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks, stroke, and venous thrombosis.”

“We must emphasize again that each of these risks could readily be inferred from the cited limited preclinical data, but were not followed up with appropriate in-depth investigations.  In particular, the clinical trials did not monitor any laboratory parameters that could have provided information on these risks, such as those related to blood coagulation (e.g. D-dimers/thrombocytes), muscle cell damage (e.g. troponin/creatine kinase), or liver damage (e.g. γ-glutamyltransferase). That the various regulatory agencies granted emergency use authorization based on such incomplete and insufficient data amounts to nothing less than gross negligence.”

“Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results.  This vaccine, and others, are often called ‘experimental.’  Calling off this failed experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes against humanity.”

The strong language used by these doctors is worth respect and adds credence to the notion that we are embarking on a vaccine dystopia.

Research From Europe On Victims Of Vaccine Induced Blood Clots

In June a medical paper by experienced European physicians and medical researchers described four cases of patients that suffered from COVID vaccine induced blood clots.  They presented with varying symptoms that posed challenges for doctors to address.  Here are some highlights from this paper.

“Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a novel entity that emerged in March 2021 following reports of unusual thrombosis after (AstraZeneca) vaccination.  … The present study highlights the issues associated with the recognition of VITT, the limitations of current guidance and the need for heightened clinical vigilance as our understanding of the pathophysiology of this novel condition evolves.  … As of 4 April 2021, a total of 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and 53 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) had been reported to the European drug safety database EudraVigilance.”

“Over recent weeks, the concept of VITT has emerged as an entirely novel clinical entity that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, even in young and otherwise healthy recipients.  The limited clinical data regarding this rare disorder associated with use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) adenoviral vaccines has posed significant clinical challenges.”

“We believe that the clinico-pathological spectrum associated with VITT may be much wider than first envisaged.  This hypothesis is supported by the cases presented in the present study.”

“With improved awareness of this condition it is more likely that patients may present earlier, while the disorder is still in evolution.”

What is clear is that the blood clot condition in vaccinated people is serious and the medical community’s ability to address or fully acknowledge the problem is uncertain.  There is still too much allegiance to the vaccines.

Wall Street Journal And Nature Journal

To its credit, the Wall Street Journal published a long article in July on the COVID vaccine blood clot issue.  Here are highlights from it.

“Canadian researchers say they have pinpointed a handful of amino acids targeted by key antibodies in the blood of some people who received the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, offering fresh clues to what causes rare blood clots associated with the shot.”

“The peer-reviewed findings, by a team of researchers from McMaster University in Ontario, were published …by the science journal Nature.  They could help doctors rapidly test for and treat the unusual clotting, arising from an immune-driven mix of coagulation and loss of platelets that stop bleeding.”

“The blood clotting, which some scientists have named vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, has also been linked to Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 shot, though incidents have occurred less frequently with that shot than with AstraZeneca.”

“Though rare, the condition has proven deadly in more than 170 adults post-vaccination in the U.K., Europe and U.S., according to government tallies.  Many were younger adults who appeared healthy before vaccination, researchers and drug regulators say.”

“The total number of cases after first or second doses in the U.K. was 395 through June 23…Of the 395, 70 people have died.  European officials said this month that they have seen 479 potential cases of VITT out of 51.4 million AstraZeneca vaccinations…Far fewer potential cases—21 …followed J&J vaccinations in Europe.  Of those cases, 100 deaths occurred after AstraZeneca vaccination and four after Johnson & Johnson, European regulators said.”  Those are high death rates.

“U.S. health officials said in late June that they have identified 38 confirmed cases of the blood-clotting syndrome out of more than 12.3 million people who received the J&J vaccine…The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in May that three cases had been fatal and evidence “suggests a plausible causal association between the combination of low platelets and clotting and the vaccine.”  Again, that combination can explain serious bleeding events.

As to what is going on inside the body:

“[In] rare cases, vaccinated people have experienced an autoimmune reaction in which antibodies bind with unusual strength to a blood component called platelet factor 4, or PF4, forming distinct clusters resembling a bunch of grapes.  This so-called immune complex, a molecular formation in the blood, activates more platelets, ‘like putting a match to gasoline,’ said John Kelton, an author of the Nature paper and researcher at McMaster University.  The process accelerates, he and other researchers say, triggering simultaneous bleeding and clotting, sometimes in the brain, stomach and other areas that can in rare cases be deadly. ‘We think these antibodies are incredible amplifiers, in a bad way, of the normal coagulation system,’ said Dr. Kelton”

Interestingly, this article did not mention the previously discussed case of the Canadian doctor and his findings about microscopic blood clotting.

New York Times

In April, there was limited coverage of stoppages of some vaccines:

“First it was AstraZeneca. Now Johnson & Johnson.  Last week, British regulators and the European Union’s medical agency said they had established a possible link between AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine and very rare, though sometimes fatal, blood clots.  The pause in the use of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine in Europe over similar concerns threatens to hurt a sluggish rollout that was just starting to gain momentum.”

Also noted was that states paused use of the J&J vaccine after a US advisory.

“Regulators have asked vaccine recipients and doctors to look out for certain symptoms, including severe and persistent headaches and tiny blood spots under the skin.”

New England Journal Of Medicine

In April this journal published three research articles on blood clotting related to COVID vaccines and a long editorial by two physicians reviewing all the work.  Here are highlights from the latter.

“The Journal has now highlighted three independent descriptions of 39 persons with a newly described syndrome characterized by thrombosis and thrombocytopenia that developed 5 to 24 days after initial vaccination with [the AstraZeneca vaccine].  … These persons were healthy or in medically stable condition, and very few were known to have had previous thrombosis or a preexisting prothrombotic condition.  Most of the patients included in these reports were women younger than 50 years of age, some of whom were receiving estrogen-replacement therapy or oral contraceptives.  A remarkably high percentage of the patients had thromboses at unusual sites — specifically, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or thrombosis in the portal, splanchnic, or hepatic veins.  Other patients presented with deep venous thrombi, pulmonary emboli, or acute arterial thromboses.  … High levels of d-dimers and low levels of fibrinogen were common and suggest systemic activation of coagulation.  Approximately 40% of the patients died, some from ischemic brain injury, superimposed hemorrhage, or both conditions, often after anticoagulation.”

“Better understanding of how the vaccine induces these platelet-activating antibodies might also provide insight into the duration of antigen exposure and the risk of reoccurrence of thrombosis, which will inform the need for extended anticoagulation and might lead to improvements in vaccine design.”

“Additional cases have now been reported to the European Medicines Agency, including at least 169 possible cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 possible cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis among 34 million recipients of the [AstraZeneca] vaccine, 35 possible cases of central nervous system thrombosis among 54 million recipients of the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA vaccine, and 5 possible (but unvetted) cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis among 4 million recipients of the Moderna mRNA vaccine.  Six possible cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (with or without splanchnic vein thrombosis) have been reported among the more than 7 million recipients of the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine.”

Here is the final conclusion: “The questions of whether certain populations can be identified as more suitable candidates for one or another vaccine and who and how to monitor for this rare potential complication will require additional study.”  But it is not clear whether CDC and NIH are funding such work.

Salk Institute

In April, the Salk Institute promoted coverage of research conducted by a number of people associated with it.  The chief finding was that the spike protein associated with the COVID virus and with vaccines was connected to strokes, heart attacks and blood clots.

“The paper, published in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level.  … the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the [spike] protein damages vascular cells.”

A subsequent article in May examined this work and made several important observations.  Here is its perspective, as relevant to the COVID vaccines.

“The prestigious Salk Institute…has authored and published the bombshell scientific study revealing that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the Covid jabs is what’s actually causing vascular damage.  Critically, all three of the experimental Covid vaccines currently under emergency use authorisation in the UK either inject patients with the spike protein or, via mRNA technology, instruct the patient’s own body to manufacture the spike protein and release them into the blood system.”

“The Salk Institute study proves the assumption made by the vaccine industry, that the spike protein is inert and harmless, to be false and dangerously inaccurate.”

“The research proves that the Covid vaccines are capable of inducing vascular disease and directly causing injuries and deaths stemming to blood clots and other vascular reactions.  This is all caused by the spike protein that’s engineered into the vaccines.”

Report By 57 Medical Experts

This May report was prepared by nearly five dozen highly respected doctors, scientists, and public policy experts from across the globe.  It went public and was urgently sent to world leaders as well as all who are associated with the production and distribution of the various Covid-19 vaccines in circulation today.  The report demanded an immediate stop to COVID vaccinations.  Dr. McCullough was one of the signatories.

“Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities,” said the experts.

On the issue of blood clotting in vaccinated people the report said this:

“Some adverse reactions, including blood-clotting disorders, have already been reported in healthy and young vaccinated people.  These cases led to the suspension or cancellation of the use of adenoviral vectorized [AstraZeneca] and [J&J] vaccines in some countries.  It has now been proposed that vaccination with [AstraZeneca vaccine] can result in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against Platelet factor-4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.“

*

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 on Principia Scientific Intl.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. 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 U.S. 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 is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from PSI

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Almost a quarter of people in hospitals in England who are being counted as ‘COVID patients’ are actually being treated for other illnesses, according to a new report.

“Health service statistics show there were 6,146 NHS beds taken up by people who were Covid positive on September 14th, the latest date data is available for,” reports the Daily Mail.

“But just 4,721 patients (77%) were primarily being treated for the virus, with the remaining 1,425 receiving care for other illnesses or injuries. They could include patients who’ve had a fall or even new mothers who tested positive after giving birth.”

In the Midlands area meanwhile, a full third of patients supposedly being treated for COVID were actually in hospital for different reasons.

The report also acknowledges that as many of half of patients who enter hospital only test positive for COVID after being admitted for an unrelated illness.

The difference between the ‘official’ figure and the real one is important because the UK government has said it won’t hesitate to re-enforce mask mandates, vaccine passports and a new lockdown this winter if hospitalizations continue to rise.

As we previously highlighted, despite the fact that the vaccine was supposed to prevent hospitalizations, many of the same experts who lobbied for the previous lockdowns are claiming that numbers are on a trajectory that will mandate new lockdown restrictions.

Just 24 hours after health secretary Sajid Javid asserted that they had been completely scrapped, the government reversed its position, saying that vaccine passports will in fact form a “first-line defence” against a winter wave of coronavirus.

Back in December, the same government told the public that there was no plan whatsoever to introduce vaccine passports even as they were paying private corporations to build the system.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

At the “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Sobornost in the Light of the Orthodox Doctrine” conference on September 16, a joint presentation was made by Metropolitan Nikifor of Kykkos and Tylliria and Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos and Orini of the Church of Cyprus. The joint presentation given at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow made a scathing attack against the decision of many Orthodox Churches to recognize the independence of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine from the Russian Orthodox Church, also known as the Moscow Patriarchate. Their presentation fully contextualized how divided the Christian Orthodox World is following the 2018 schism.

The Orthodox Catholic Church, more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, is in a state of crisis and division because of the Ukrainian church issue. The division emerged due to the arbitrary and anti-canonical granting of autocephaly, or independence from external patriarchal authority, to the schismatic structures of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, headed by Archbishop Bartholomew I of Constantinople. This was against the will of the Russian Orthodox Church which for centuries held jurisdiction over Ukraine.

According to the Metropolitan’s presentation, some forces in ecumenical Orthodoxy are “using the difficult situation that has developed in Ukraine” and are “trying to break the unity of the Orthodox Church. And they succeeded in something.” They cited as an example “the sinful and inexplicable visit of the Patriarch of Constantinople to Kiev and his concelebration with the schismatics.”

Patriarch Bartholomew visited Ukraine on August 20-24 and celebrated the 30th anniversary of the country’s independence from the Soviet Union. During his visit, he served with schismatics from the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and met with President Volodymyr Zelensky and other politicians.

Istanbul-based Patriarch Bartholomew is considered “first among equals” as he heads the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, otherwise known as the Mother Church. Because of this status, he holds a certain prestige not afforded to other Patriarchs, something that has been a source of conflict between Constantinople and Moscow for centuries, especially after the latter attempted to take the mantle of “Third Rome.”

Although the immediate source of disagreement between the two Patriarchates is based on different interpretations of the 1686 Letter of Issue that had given permission to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, this rivalry is based in the struggle of ecclesiastical supremacy.

With the Ottomans capturing Constantinople in 1453, the Constantinople Patriarchate became the sole institution to survive the more than 1,500-year existence of the Roman Empire before its final destruction, giving it a privileged stature over other churches. However, after the Fall of Constantinople and the end of the Eastern Roman Empire (commonly known as the Byzantine Empire), the Moscow Patriarchate reigned supremacy as it was not under Muslim rule. Under this context, the two churches have competed for territory and influence for centuries.

Bartholomew’s decision has significant implications. He, a Turkish citizen as all of Constantinople’s Patriarchs must be, is scheduled to meet U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House on October 23. This will mean that the Patriarch will have met with Biden at the White House before Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, not only signalling his close relationship with the U.S., but also the current distance between Washington and Ankara.

The schism between Constantinople and Moscow is obviously political in nature as there is no underlying theological or doctrinal issue at stake. Rather, the schism brings to question the nature of Ukrainian identity. In this way, Bartholomew, who has fostered a very close relationship with the U.S., so-much-so that then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited him and not Turkish government officials in November 2020, is encouraging a permanent Ukrainian separation from Russia by revoking a centuries old agreement.

Effectively, Bartholomew mirrored Kiev’s attempts to be absorbed by the west and split from Moscow by granting Ukraine spiritual independence, even if it was schismatic. In this way, Bartholomew made himself a proxy of U.S. interests against Russia. In the context of the Constantinople-Moscow rivalry, Bartholomew has hedged his bets in backing the U.S. against Russia for the perceived benefits it could bring to the Constantinople Patriarchate.

Although the Moscow Patriarchate has lost control of thousands of churches due to the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it still remains by far the largest and wealthiest Orthodox church. However, Russia is already under an immense pressure campaign from the West – diplomatically, economically and militarily. What Bartholomew has effectively done is open a new pressure front against Russia – spiritually.

This could have long-term ramifications though, not only because of the current schism, but because new schisms could also emerge. For example, what could stop the unrecognized Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric from achieving recognized autocephaly, especially since it already unilaterally announced its autocephaly from the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1967?

Bartholomew has essentially established a pretext that can lead to further divisions and schisms in the already divided Christian Orthodox World. He is also blatantly acting as an agent of pressure against Russia, just on a less obvious and often overlooked front. Given these conditions, even bishops and metropolitans within church structures that support the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are beginning to speak out in a strong way against the actions of Constantinople’s Patriarch. Despite this, it is unlikely to lead to Bartholomew reversing his decision.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image: United States President Barack Obama meets with Bartholomew I (Public Domain)

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

***

.

It is human nature to wish to be remembered. We have an innate desire to leave behind a legacy or some tangible proof of our existence that outlasts our fleeting time on Earth. Groups comprised of individuals who share an identity also long for this recognition. Collective experiences, achievements, and histories of people have been lost, sometimes systematically through institutionalized inequity, and others through tragic, but often unavoidable, cycles.

An addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in the form of a new article asserting groups’ right to be remembered must be codified and incorporated in order to prevent groups from passing into obscurity. The Declaration’s thirty articles proclaim the right of every individual to certain personal and associational freedoms that must be protected and respected. However, the right for people and cultures to be acknowledged before and after their passing and to shape and direct their own narratives as individuals and as groups, is absent.

In a sense, this is the apex of all rights as a selfless gesture recognizing each person’s existence and rewarding those who come after with the knowledge that enhances our collective navigation forward. It should therefore be added to the UDHR, stated as the following:

All individuals and people who share a common identity have a right to be remembered, to protect and preserve their cultural heritage, and to have autonomy over the safeguarding of their collective experience, cultural artifacts, and oral and written histories.

The International Human Rights Law Clinic at Berkeley proposes a right to identity that “protects an individual’s significant and knowable personal attributes and social relationships.” As asserted in a paper exploring the development of this right, “a human right that is ‘merely repetitive’ of existing rights is not ripe for codification.” The article we seek to codify will bolster existing rights and prevent the extinction of peoples and their cultures.

Museums are one source of this preservation of culture and spreading awareness of various peoples and societies. Western museums, though, have a history of usurping the cultures of minoritized people from around the world. While it is true that museums play a crucial role in promoting appreciation for different peoples, many museums have acquired cultural artifacts through exploitation, colonialism, and imperialism.

In his book, The Brutish Museums, Dan Hicks reminds us that injustice is not a solitary past event but an ongoing reality, only rectified by rewriting the histories from the framework of loss and the “urgent task of African cultural restitution…in which the museum will variously dismantle, repurpose, disperse, return, re-imagine, and rebuild itself” (xiv). We can appreciate the value of museums and their unique ability to house these objects without accepting the appropriation of objects and histories sacred to groups. Published in 2004, the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums stipulates that “museums are agents in the development of culture, whose mission is to foster knowledge by a continuous process of reinterpretation.”

Groups also have a tendency to mark specific sites that symbolize ideologies and memorialize experiences. Cultural landscapes act as fundamental tools for understanding a people’s collective history. These sites are places associated with great shared trauma and emotion, like battlefields or monuments to revelatory moments of a peoplehood’s formation. They reinforce identity by creating a sense of belonging, unity, and resilience. Yet, cultural landscapes are often funded by governments or institutions that decide how we remember certain people and events.

Memory is an essential part of the human experience because it creates and retains heritage and culture. The creation of memory and history are clearly deliberate, complex processes. They are inextricably political because of their socioeconomic implications, with groups in power having the resources to control the narratives.

The codification of the Right to Be Remembered will give marginalized groups agency to tell their authentic histories rather than ones crafted to maintain hierarchy. This will work to dismantle global systems of domination that silence people by deconstructing prevalent ideologies grounded in racism and patriarchy. We must uplift the voices of those unheard, forgotten, and even gone. For the sake of equity, people deserve to have their joys celebrated, their collective tragedies mourned, and their cultural legacies remembered.

*

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. Yossef Ben-Meir is President of the High Atlas Foundation (HAF) and Chief-of-Party of the USAID Religious and Ethnic Minorities Activity Program in Morocco. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Emily Oksen and Kristin O’Donoghue are students at the University of Virginia and interns with HAF.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the 20^th anniversary of the mass murders of September 11, 2001, the corporate mainstream and alternative media have been replete with articles analyzing the consequences of 9/11 that resulted in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its alleged withdrawal after two decades of war.

These critiques have ranged from mild to harsh, and have covered issues from the loss of civil liberties due to The Patriot Act and government spying through all the wars “on terror” in so many countries with their disastrous consequences and killing fields.  Many of these articles have emphasized how, as a result of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11, the U.S. has lost its footing and brought on the demise of the American empire and its standing in the world.  Some writers celebrate this and others bemoan it.  Most seem to consider this inevitable.

This flood of articles has been authored by writers from across the political spectrum from the left through the center to the right.  All were outraged in their own ways, as such dramatic events typically manage to elicit much spilled ink informed by the writers’ various ideological positions in a media world where the categories of left and right have become meaningless.

These articles have included cries about phony tears for the wrong victims (those who died in the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and on the planes), how good intelligence could have prevented 9/11, how so many died in vain, how it all led to torture, how whistle blowers were not heeded, how the military was right, how the collapse of the towers led to the collapse of the American empire, how bin Laden won, how evil U.S. war making came home in the form of 9/11 evil, how the longest war was in vain, how the Pentagon received vast sums of money over the decades, how the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a betrayal of the 9/11 victims, etc.

Many of the points made were valid; others were not.  This flood of opinionated outrage was very emotional and no doubt stirred deep feelings in readers.  It fed on the widespread feeling in the country that something dreadful has occurred, but what it is isn’t exactly clear. The sense of mass confusion and continual disaster permeating the air and infecting people’s daily lives.  The sense of unreality existing everywhere.

These articles have almost run their course and a new series of post mortems can be anticipated as fear and trembling attaches to new matters, particularly the ongoing Covid-19 fear porn minus the dire consequences of government policies. Fear is the name of the game and untruth snakes through the media hidden in the grass of truth.  Many of the articles I referred to above – and you can check for yourself as I have purposely left out names and links – contain truths, but truths that disguise deeper untruths upon which the truths are allegedly based.  I will leave the logic lesson to you.

Since many of these articles have been penned by liberal writers, some of whom one might naively expect to grasp essentials, and since those further to the right are considered defenders of Pax Americana, I will quote the outspoken anti-war singer/songwriter Phil Ochs, who prefaced his trenchant 1965 song, Love Me I’m a Liberal, with these words about logic:

In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. Here, then, is a lesson in safe logic.

So here’s the rub about the logic.  Almost without exception (there are a handful of truthful writers aside from those I am here referring to, such as Kit Knightly, Michel Chossudovsky, Pepe Escobar, et al.), from the left to the right and everywhere in between, the authors of all these articles about the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and Afghanistan have based their points on a false premise.

A false premise.  This is the way minds are shaped in the era of mass propaganda and servile journalism.  Assume (or make believe) something is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and build from there. Slip in this premise or background assumption as if it were truer than true. This is what has happened throughout the media in the last two weeks.  It is not new but worth pointing out.

The false premise is this: That 9/11 was a terror attack carried out by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as blow-back for American wars against Muslims, and this terror attack on the U.S. led to the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

The evidence is overwhelming that this premise is false.  In fact, the evidence makes clear that 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag attack, carried out by sinister forces within the government of the United States with a little help from certain foreign junior partners to justify its subsequent war crimes across the globe.  I will not explore here the ample evidence concerning 9/11, for it is readily available to readers who have the will to look.  Even the use of the shorthand – 9/11 for the events of September 11, 2001 – that I have used here for brevity’s sake, is a crucial part of the linguistic propaganda used to frighten and to conjure up thoughts of an ongoing national emergency, as I have written elsewhere.

One is not supposed to say that the mass murders of September 11, 2001 were a false flag attack, for it touches a realty that is so disturbing in its consequences that all the hand wringing post mortems must deny: That nearly three thousand innocent people in the U.S. had first to be murdered as a pretext for killing millions around the world.  It is a lesson in radical evil that is very difficult to swallow, and so must be hidden in a vast tapestry of lies and safe logic.  American innocence can survive the disclosures of U.S. atrocities overseas because the deaths of foreigners have never meant much to Americans, but to bring it all back home is anathema.

It is another example of the unspeakable, as the Trappist monk Thomas Merton said long ago and James W. Douglass referenced in his monumental book, JFK and the Unspeakable, to explain why John Kennedy died at the hands of the CIA and why that fact had to be suppressed.  The mass murders of September 11, 2001 recapitulate that systemic evil that defies speech.

It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. It is the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience…

From true writers and journalists we should expect something better – that they don’t repeat official declarations, utter hollow platitudes, and build analyses on false premises – but these are not the best of times, to rephrase Ochs, and safe logic keeps one’s legitimacy intact and protects one’s brand.

It’s always personal when it comes to the unspeakable.

*

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 on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

---

Edward Curtin is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Our thanks to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts for bringing this short video to our attention.

While officially politicians are vaccinated, there are indications (yet to be fully confirmed) that many politicians are carefully avoiding being vaccinating “for real”.

They are aware of the so-call “health risks”.

Short message. Just a Suggestion. 

Watch the video below.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The state of Uttar Pradesh in India, which has the equivalent of two-thirds of the United States population, has been declared COVID-free, the state government announced last week.

There are no more active cases of coronavirus in the 33 districts of Uttar Pradesh, which has a population of 241 million people.

“Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent,” Hindustan Times reported.

Credit: Google COVID statistics

How is it that Uttar Pradesh has fully recovered from COVID despite the fact that only 5.8% of its population has been fully vaccinated, compared to the USA that has 54% fully vaccinated?

The answer is likely because of the government’s early use and distribution of ivermectin to its citizens.

From the Indian Express:

“Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.

He added that based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of Covid patients and later cleared the administration of therapeutic doses for the treatment of such patients.

Claiming that timely introduction of Ivermectin since the first wave has helped the state maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high population density, he said, “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population.”

He said that apart from aggressive contact tracing and surveillance, the lower positivity and fatality rates may be attributed to the large-scale use of Ivermectin use in the state, adding that the drug has recently been introduced in the National Protocol for Covid treatment and management. “Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself,” Vikasendu told The Indian Express.”

One would think the World Health Organization, Big Pharma, the mainstream media, and Dr. Anthony Fauci would be overjoyed by this development that ivermectin is undoubtedly saving lives.

But don’t count on them celebrating that, because that would hurt their bottom lines of profit and power from their experimental and ineffective vaccines.

That’s why they’ve been melting down over ivermectin after Joe Rogan successfully used it to treat his COVID infection earlier this month.

*

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 is from Zero Hedge

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

How obvious does it have to be before even insouciant Americans realize that there is something seriously wrong about the Covid vaccination program?  

One would think we are already past that point even for the mentally-challenged.

Consider the many things we now know that make it clear that the vaccination program is a horrendous mistake.

We know that the vaccine does not protect. Dr. Fauci himself, a leading proponent of the vaccination program and Chief Shill for Big Pharma, admits this.  This is why he says the double-vaccinated should wear masks and should have booster shots.  If the vaccine protects a person from Covid, why do vaccinated people need to wear masks and have more vaccine shots?  In Israel the Health Minister is already advocating a second booster shot which makes four jabs of the Pfizer “vaccine,” and the alleged “pandemic” is 3 months short of being 2 years old. Pfizer itself now admits that its vaccine looses its effectiveness over time.  According to Fauci it is only good for 8 months, and you can expect to see that period grow smaller.

From the under-reported databases in the US, UK, and EU of adverse vaccine reactions to the mRNA “vaccines,” we know that there have been tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries associated with the vaccine.  The databases are official data, and medical personnel are fully aware that hospitals and doctors seldom, if ever, report adverse reactions to the Covid Vaccine, instead attributing the deaths and illnesses from the “vaccine” to Covid itself.  It is only some individuals who report the adverse reactions.  This is why experts have concluded that only between 1% and 10% of adverse vaccine reactions are reported.  For some age groups—especially children and the young— the mRNA “vaccine” has proven to be more dangerous than Covid.

We also know that distinguished scientists and medical practitioners have concluded that the mRNA “vaccine” interacts with the Covid virus in a way that enables it to escape the immune response.  The consequence is new variants.

We also know from the official statistics of highly vaccinated places, such as Israel (84%), Iceland (95)%, and Gibraltar (99%), that the mRNA “vaccine” makes the vaccinated more likely to catch Covid and become seriously ill than the unvaccinated. The hospitals in these places are full of vaccinated patients.  Yet we continue to hear the propaganda broadcast of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

And evidence is mounting that the vaccinated can infect the unvaccinated.

On this website I have reported more than once these conclusions and provided links to the evidence. 

This powerful evidence from top-ranking scientists is kept out of the presstitute media.  The CDC, NIH, FDA, AMA, WHO, hospital administrators and executives of large health care organizations, university and public school administrators, Democrat politicians, and employers all pretend not to know about the evidence that indicts the vaccination program and would easily convict the program of intentional murder if the case could be brought to court.

Instead hospitals are losing large chunks of their medical staffs who resign or are fired for refusing the vaccine.   These are the nurses who have seen what the vaccine does to patients.  Being up-close-informed, they prefer unemployment to vaccination.  That should tell the hospital administrators and the dumbshit public something, but it doesn’t.  The media shoos away the protesting nurses as people who won’t do their duty to protect their patients and the public by getting vaccinated.  Liberals especially get on their high horse about “refractory nurses” who refuse to protect their patients.

The scientists and medical practitioners  who are raising alarms are so well-known that it is impossible that the CDC, FDA, NIH, AMA, and hospital and university administrators do not know of them.  Not content to ignore the evidence, they intentionally lie to us.  They lie that children are so in danger of Covid that they need to be forcefully vaccinated.  They lie that unvaccinated people and people who have recovered from Covid and have natural immunity are dangerous to everyone else and must be excluded from school, work, restaurants, sports events, concerts, public transportation, travel to other countries, all to be enforced by Covid Passports.  The passport itself is a lunatic idea considering the 8 months protection Dr. Fauci assigns to the “vaccine.”  A passport that has to be renewed every 8 months is a bureaucratic nightmare.

They lie that children are so in danger that they must wear masks in school even though it is a known fact that the masks they wear are totally ineffectual in preventing transmission of the virus.  The only mask that is effectual is the N95, and it is impossible for anyone, much less a school child, to wear a N95 mask all day.  In some parts of the US laws have been passed that subject school teachers and administrators to prison sentences for not enforcing the mask mandate for school children. These draconian laws might also apply to parents who allow a child to go to school without a mask. See this. 

In other words, total counterfactual insanity is the American Covid Policy.

No one can respect public institutions that are so totally irresponsible that they ignore facts and base health policies on lies.  In the United States “responsible public health agency” is an oxymoron. 

From day one the Covid “pandemic” was totally orchestrated.  China, faced with an outbreak of an unknown virus of unknown mortality and no known cure, resorted to draconian measures and locked down entire cities and areas.  Scare stories proliferated and the presstitutes in the US ratcheted up the fear index.  Dire predictions were made based on very few cases outside China.  “Public health agencies” went to work to make the predictions come true.  They achieved this with the PCR test which they intentionally ran at such high cycles that it produced 97% false positives.  This is how the scary number of cases was orchestrated that struck fear into the population.

We were all going to die.  This fear enabled the highly destructive lockdowns and mask requirements that accustomed people to the view that civil liberty was expendable in a time of “health crisis.”

Most of the people who did die were people with co-morbidities.  Some of them died from their co-morbidities; others died because they were not treated.

Even today 19 months later, hospitals still withhold effective treatment from Covid patients.  There have been effective treatments available the entire time, but to acknowledge the fact would have foreclosed the mRNA “vaccine.”  

Normally it takes many years to get a vaccine approved.  It has to go through many tests and steps.  The mRNA “vaccines” were rushed into use under the provision for emergency use authorization. That authorization requires that there are no known cures.

Thus CDC, NIH, FDA, and WHO, allied as they are with Big Pharma, refused to acknowledge two safe and long-used drugs that are so safe that they are available for over-the-counter purchase  in most countries—HCQ and Ivermectin—which are both Covid cures and Covid prevention.  The Tokyo Medical Association has authorized all Japanese doctors to use Ivermectin as a Covid cure.  In India Ivermectin was used in most provinces to stop Covid in its tracks.  In African countries impacted by malaria HCQ is taken weekly as a preventative, and Covid cases are few.  In African countries where River Blindness is a problem, Ivermectin is taken weekly or bi-weekly, and there are few Covid cases.  This information has been withheld from the American and Western publics by the presstitue media.  Both cures have been demonized by the American medical establishment and the scum presstitutes.  Even today hospitals refuse to treat dying patients with these sure-fire cures.  Moreover, either taken weekly would provide a hundred times more protection from Covid than the dangerous and ineffective mRNA “vaccines” and cost a small fraction of the amount spent on the Pfizer and other “vaccines.”

Clearly without any doubt one agenda served by the orchestrated “pandemic” and controlled narrative is the profits of Big Pharma, especially Pfizer.

Clearly without any doubt another agenda served by the orchestrated “pandemic” is authoritarian control over populations in democratic countries.  Today Western peoples have lost the right to hold government accountable  and instead are held accountable by government for not being vaccinated and wearing masks.  The civil liberties achieved over centuries of struggle have been lost to an orchestrated pandemic.

The profit agenda and the control agenda are completely obvious.  The question before us is: Is there a darker agenda?  Are the conspiracy theories real?

When you consider the intentional orchestration of a fearful pandemic, the intentional withholding of cures, the intentional vaccination with a substance that does not protect but does produce serious side effects and release new variants, it is reasonable to suspect that something is afoot beyond profit and control.

Bill Gates whose extraordinary fortune allows him entry anywhere has been going on for years about population control.  It is highly suspected by top-ranked scientists that the spike protein in the mRNA “vaccine” accumulates in the ovaries and results in infertility.  We now have several thousand cases of pregnant women losing babies to the “vaccine.”

We have the Nazi Klaus Schwab, creator and director of the World Economic Forum and author of The Great Reset who has been organizing, cultivating, and indoctrinating Western elites for decades that the New World Order should consist of elite rule, not democracy and constitutions that protect individuals.  I was once invited to a Davos meeting, but they saw that they could not recruit me, and I have never been invited back.

Think how easily civil liberty, one of mankind’s greatest achievements, can be erased by creating a prestigious  forum to which only the elite and their obedient intellectual servants are invited where they are told that they are the natural rulers and all they need in order to take power is a world crisis, or at least a Western crisis.  

As a person who for my readers’ sake watches all I can closely, I can say that the glory of the Western world, the idea that merit, not birth, or any other accidental quality such as skin color or gender, is the basis of success is a dead idea.  Today in the US, and as far as I can see throughout the Western world, merit is considered a white racist concept that justifies “white supremacy.” 

In the US, and I suspect everywhere in the Western world, merit systems have and are being replaced by other criteria for success, such as non-white skin color, non-straight sexual preference, new invented genders.  

The United States of America now has a presidency that was stolen.  It has an administration chosen on the basis of  anti-white racial, anti-heterosexual sexual, and anti-male/female gender preferences.  The Biden Regime is a government that in my grandparents day would have caused Americans to march on Washington, burn the city down, and kill everyone in it.

In America today the only few leaders are at the state level, and the illegitimate Biden regime has them in its sights.  

Republican Governor DeSantis of Florida was the first to rebel at the hospitals’ murder of Covid patients.  DeSantis established clinics all over Florida to give patients monoclonal antibodies.  DeSantis’ sensible approach spread to Texas and Alabama.

The Republican governors’ reward for saving lives was to have their supply of monoclonal antibodies cut 50% by the illegitimate, criminal, murderous Biden Regime.  The Democrat regime cut the allocation of the cure to Republican governors. The utterly corrupt Biden regime justified the cut to Florida on Florida’s lack of a vaccination mandate. The White House claims that Florida is using too much of “limited supplies” of monoclonal antibodies because it doesn’t have a vaccine mandate. See this.    

Why is the cure limited but not the ineffectual and dangerous “vaccine?”  

Governor DeSantis has appealed to GlaxoSmithKline to sell the state the Covid cure so that Florida can prevent the dangerous vaccine from destroying the Florida population and terminating civil liberty in Florida, which seems to be the intent of the corrupt and illegitimate Biden regime. See this. 

The monoclonal antibodies were used to treat President Trump and cannot be prohibited by hospital protocols.  DeSantis can give the OK to Ivermectin and HCQ but apparently has yet to find a way to impose this successful, safe treatment on hospitals which operate according to Big Pharma’s protocol which is backed up by CDC, NIH, and FDA.

DeSantis is also under attack for not permitting in Florida the mask mandates that are mandatory in Democrat states that have gone totally totalitarian. For now a Federal Court has ruled in DeSantis’ favor.  But the Democrats who brought the case against Florida’s ban against mask mandates are hoping Biden will overrule Florida’s laws with a Federal edict or contrived court case.  

In other words, the Biden regime is determined and will use every power it can find or invent in order to prevent governors from protecting their state populations from Covid, from the dangerous mRNA vaccine, and from the tyranny of authoritarianism.  

How much more proof do you need to comprehend that the Biden regime intends to destroy our health and our freedom?  Are Americans capable of understanding the situation they are in?

At least in Australia, Europe, and England they are in the streets protesting. In America the dumbshit sheeple are lining up for the Death Shot.

*

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.

Featured image is from The Sociable

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

I was alerted to what was coming at the end of July. Under the headline “The time for debating vaccines passports is over,” Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard wrote that “it would be irresponsible, not to mention politically and economically self-defeating, to not try limiting the intermingling of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.” Two words struck me as particularly eerie: “intermingling,” and “population.” At that point, I had decided against vaccination on various grounds. The most compelling was concern for my heart. I had had some heart troubles at the end of 2020, and I knew that the new vaccines occasionally produced heart inflammation—a frequent enough side effect that Health Canada requires a caution on the labels of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Now, evidently, my decision had consigned me to a threatening “population” requiring segregation and exclusion.  

Since then, there has been an almost daily increase in the number of jurisdictions climbing aboard the vaccine passport bandwagon. There are local variations in the nature of the “passports,” but we may take the term as referring to the requirement that one produce proof of full vaccination as a precondition for travel, employment, or admission to various public places. France, Italy, and Israel now have internal passport systems, as do cities like New York and San Francisco. In Canada, five provinces have announced they will issue certificates of “adequate protection.”

There are still holdouts. Most U.S. states have rejected or actively banned any passport system. But among my neighbors and even some old friends, there seems to be a solid consensus that any resistance to compulsory vaccination is a mark of selfishness, or much worse—of “anti-science” thinking, or conspiracy theory, or even outright denialism. Conversation is difficult under these circumstances, and has become so polarized and full of pitfalls that it has become much easier to call people names than to conduct a courteous discussion. With what follows I hope to encourage a more civil atmosphere.

Vaccine requirements have existed for a long time. I carried an International Certificate of Vaccination during youthful travels more than half a century ago. It’s not the legitimacy of venerable public health restrictions of this kind that I want to talk about, but the very new situation COVID has created.

Vaccines have normally taken up to seven years to develop and fully test. The COVID vaccines currently on offer were developed and tested within a year. Most of the studies justifying the “emergency use authorization” they initially received were not released to the public or even to other scientists. A recent British Medical Journal article on the subject reports an “overall picture” of what it delicately calls “varied transparency.” It cites a “WHO report [which] found that out of 86 clinical trials for 20 COVID-19 vaccines, 12% of clinical trial protocols were made publicly available.” These vaccines, moreover, employ a new and previously untried technology. It seems, therefore, both fair and factual to call them experimental vaccines, even if the word has taken on a polemical edge in the current fraught environment. It also seems fair to insist, as some do, that these are not vaccines at all in the accepted sense.  Vaccines, as the term has previously been understood, employ a killed or attenuated form of the disease to stimulate an immune reaction. These new agents involve a genetic intervention better described as “gene therapy” rather than vaccination.

How has it been possible to convince a majority of the safety of an experimental vaccine, whose long-term effects cannot, by definition, be known? To answer this question one has to go back to the way in which the pandemic has been presented to the public.

From the beginning the pandemic has been called a war, with all the concomitants of war—demonization of enemies, sentimentalization of heroes, constant stoking of fear, and censorship of untoward opinions. It’s this last feature that has been the most shocking, from my point of view. During the last eighteen months, there has been lively scientific disagreement over the character of the new disease, the danger it poses, and the best policy to contain this danger. But barely a breath of these debates has reached the mainstream media. In Canada, for example, a group of public health professionals warned in an open letter, in summer 2020, that a policy of quarantining the entire eligible population, the so-called lockdown, was a radical departure from previous public health practice and might well backfire, doing more harm than good. This group included two former chief public health officers for Canada, three former deputy ministers of health, and three present or former deans of medicine at Canadian universities—a virtual Who’s Who of public health in Canada. Nevertheless, their statement created barely a ripple in the Canadian media that I follow.

This pattern has been repeated again and again. A few months later, on Oct. 26, 2020, three eminent epidemiologists, accredited at Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford, made what they called the Great Barrington Declaration. It called for a policy of “focused protection” for the vulnerable and a return to normality for the majority. This statement too was either ignored or treated with derision in the organs of polite opinion. Dissident doctors have been threatened with discipline. On April 30, 2021, in Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons warned the doctors whom they regulate, by statute, that these doctors would face discipline should they “communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements” or promote “unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19.” Such a threat was necessary, the College said, to counteract the spreading, by some doctors, of “blatant misinformation,” the term used to exclude unwanted opinions from journalistic media. In Australia, Dr. Paul Oosterhuis, an anaesthetist who has been practicing for more than thirty years, has been ordered to appear before his Medical Board in New South Wales for “endangering the health and safety of the public” because he questioned vaccination and counselled alternative treatment in social media posts.

This well-documented censorship is alarming. First of all, it hides scientific dissensus from the public. “Science” is presented as a monolithic body of opinion, which political leaders simply “follow.” This view of science as a transparent, unquestionable, and unified institution has two pernicious effects. First, it hides the moral character of political decisions. People can legitimately disagree, for example, about lockdowns, but what I think is undeniable is the moral character of such a policy. Some will benefit, some will be harmed, and the weighing of the one against the other is, inescapably, a political task. But under cover of “science,” it is possible to abdicate moral responsibility for the vast collateral damage of the COVID war. (And this abdication is all the more egregious when much of “the science” consists of wildly speculative statistical models.) The second consequence of “following science” is that it reinforces one of modernity’s most enduring myths: that “science” is a consistent, compact, institutionally-guaranteed body of knowledge without interest or agenda. What this myth conceals is the actual operation of the sciences—multiple, messy, contingent, and tentative as they necessarily are.

Modern science during the first half of its four-hundred-year career was called natural philosophy—Michael Faraday, who died in 1867, still called it that—and that is still, in many ways, its proper name. Recognizing science as philosophy allows us to see that, like any knowledge whatever, it is a creature of its tools, its techniques, and its initial assumptions. Einstein’s famous remark—that the most surprising and mysterious feature of the world is that it is “comprehensible” at all—points to the most basic assumption on which physical science rests: that the world corresponds to the concepts which we have available for grasping it. Vaccine science, obviously, rests on more refined and, for that very reason, more problematic assumptions, such as our right and our duty to dominate and control for our convenience the world’s biota (in which, for present purposes, I include the viruses, barely living though they are). The point is that these are philosophic assumptions that not everyone shares—a point overlooked when the vaccination question is seen as a contest  between the informed and the uninformed, or the selfish and the public spirited.

At this point, various scarecrows pop up to frighten us: the anti-vaxxer, the anti-masker, and the conspiracy theorist. These are figures of fear, or of fun, that can be used to inhibit thought, restrict debate, and discredit opposition. They are said to be spreading dangerously, like crabgrass. A columnist here in Toronto recently wrote that “anti-vaxxers” who formerly comprised no more than “a few isolated loons,” now present as an “organized campaign.” A colleague of the columnist I just quoted even detected a “fundamental change in the public mood” that was producing a “growing rage” against the unvaccinated that was “boiling up amongst the responsible vaccinated citizens.” Even a fraction of this rhetorical fury would be hate speech were it directed at any protected class—an indication of just how far beyond the pale the “anti-vaxxer” has now been placed.

People can, of course, be found who correspond more or less to these stereotypes. People often pattern themselves on the designs of their enemies, and journalistic media are always able to find people willing to play the currently assigned roles. What I want to point out is how useful these cartoon enemies are to advocates of compulsory vaccination.  Stereotypes consolidate, placing everyone into a single, easily characterized class. They discredit, tarring any and all objections with the same brush.  And, most important for my purposes here, they polarize, creating a predetermined contest in which only two positions are available. Either you’re a “responsible vaccinated citizen” or you’re a wingnut.

What is left out of the account, to return to my point earlier, is legitimate philosophical difference. Not everyone who is vaccinated feels this way, but vaccination, generally speaking, belongs to a larger scientific worldview that tends to see nature as ours to control and reshape as we will, death as an enemy to be overcome, and life as a resource to be maximized and extended at all costs.  There are other worldviews, with different accounts to give of the nature of health and the ends of human life. Disagreements that may at first appear to concern matters of fact will often turn out, on closer inspection, to be about these deeper differences in orientation. “Facts” are cited, because facts are supposedly the coin of the realm, the only recognized legal tender. But many facts are also, a priori, symbols. Their very salience as facts derives from this prior symbolic resonance. Recognition of this symbolic character is a crucial step toward civic peace. Symbols are indeterminate—they can be  interpreted, discussed, and re-interpreted.  Shadow battles over facts often get us nowhere because the facts in question are not primarily facts at all.

This brings me back to my plea that we put a realistic image of the sciences in place of the obsolete mirage of an omniscient oracle able to tell us, with absolute authority and universal jurisdiction, what shall count as a fact. If we were to recognize, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out long ago, that facts become facts within paradigms, and that facts drawn from different paradigms are incommensurable, then avenues to peace might open on the present field of battle.

That said, there are still many specific concerns about the COVID vaccines that have to be approached, even if tentatively, as factual matters. In the first place, there are questions about the character of the emergency that the vaccines are supposedly addressing, a character often obscured by the “fog of war” surrounding the battle against COVID. The obscurity starts with the “modelling” that puts a lot of hypothetical numbers into play as quasi-facts. Next are the “case counts,” derived from a test so fine-grained—the PCR test—that no one knows exactly what it is detecting.  And, finally, there are the ambiguous “death tolls,” which ascribe all deaths following the detection of COVID to its agency. Under these circumstances it can be hard to know what’s going on. A recent study published by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association examined mortality from all causes in Canada between January 2010 and March 2021 and found “no extraordinary surge in yearly or seasonal mortality which can be ascribed to a COVID-19 pandemic.” I don’t mention this finding as definitive, though I could find no fault with its reasoning or methods, but only in support of my idea that there is legitimate doubt about what exactly has been happening over the last 18 months.

The same considerations apply to safety concerns about the vaccines.  Some side-effects are well attested, although so far rare—among them blood clotting, heart inflammation, and disruption of women’s menses.  We know that the number of injuries and deaths registered by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in the U.S. are unusually high. But many other possible consequences are at this point only speculative. One such was revealed at the end of May by Canadian scientist Byram Bridle, an associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph. He told radio interviewer Alex Pierson that he and two colleagues had submitted a freedom of information request to the Japanese government’s vaccine regulator, the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, and received in response a previously unreleased study of the Pfizer vaccine. At the time, the manufacturers of the vaccines were claiming that the vaccine acted at or near the injection site and was not widely distributed in the body. The study that Bridle and his colleagues obtained, done on rats, showed otherwise. It found accumulations of the material that coats the mRNA in the vaccine in various parts of the body including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and, particularly worrying, the ovaries (of the female rats).

This result echoed a small study of 13 health care workers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston that found the spike protein, which the vaccine uses as an antigen, circulating in the blood of eleven of the participants following first inoculation. (The antigen is the element in the vaccine that induces an immune response.) A debate ensued about whether the spike protein for which the vaccine supplies the genetic recipe to our cells is a toxin or not, about how long it persists, and other such matters. Bridle and others argued that it is a toxin and speculated about possible consequences, including infertility. (Notable among those who shared Bridle’s concerns was Dr. Robert Malone, one of the scientists who first proposed the idea of mRNA vaccines more than thirty years ago.) Many able and persuasive refutations of these concerns have also been put forward. As a lay person, unqualified to judge the technical issues, I have concluded only that there might be a legitimate question here, and one that must, necessarily, remain open until time and experience can settle it. The point, for my present purpose, is only that there is such a debate and that telling points are being made on both sides of it. This should be a sufficient reason against foreclosing the issue and compelling everyone to take the vaccine.

Another school of scientific opinion worries that mass vaccination during a pandemic may lead to so-called “viral escape.” Many virologists have predicted that, as COVID-19 becomes endemic, it will moderate and become more like its various coronavirus cousins with which humanity has already achieved a painful but tolerable equilibrium. The fear of the “viral escape” school of thought is that mass vaccination might disrupt this process of equilibration. Natural immunity, achieved by fighting off infection, is robust, they say, and allows the virus no further foothold. But vaccination affords only partial immunity and may, therefore, force the pace of evolution among “escapees,” leading to the emergence of more virulent strains. This argument too is speculative, of course. Belgian virologist Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, who first advanced this theory, supported it by pointing to the way in which antibiotic use has led to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Like Bridle’s hypothesis, his idea was soon refuted—McGill University’s Office for Science and Society went so far as to call him a “doomsday prophet”—and, if you look it up, will find scores of these refutations, before you ever come to Vanden Bossche, if you come to him at all. Again, I am only trying to draw attention to the existence of competing theories, and to the fact that the differences between them cannot be quickly or easily settled. One hopes that the vaccines turn out to be as safe as their proponents say, but, in the meanwhile, the sidelining of scientific dissent and the enforcement of uniform opinion among doctors makes it difficult to have confidence that a fair evaluation is underway.

Yet another large speculative question about the vaccines concerns the integrity of the individual immune system under the pressure of externally induced genetic manipulation. Vaccination, in the old sense, imitated nature, inducing immunity by the same means by which natural immunity is achieved: exposure to a tolerable dose of the pathogen. The new “vaccines” interfere, as I’ve said, at a genetic level. Since this has never been done before, we simply cannot know, in advance of the experiment being tried, whether natural immune response to other diseases or to new forms of COVID will be in some way impaired by this intervention. This, by itself, seems to be reason enough for not compelling the reluctant to take part.

The foundation of contemporary medical ethics, by most accounts, was laid when the war crimes tribunal that met after World War II produced the Nuremberg Code in 1947. It insisted unequivocally and without exception on “voluntary consent” to any medical procedure. It went on to characterize voluntary as follows: “This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” Variations on this statement have since been issued by the U.N. and by medical associations around the world. The promotion of COVID vaccination has violated this principle. It began with bribery, whether it was the “joints for jabs” that spread from the state of Washington to other jurisdictions or free pizza or Krispy Kreme donuts or the “Vax To Win Lottery” that recently paid out $100,000 to seven people in the Canadian province of Manitoba who were willing to “roll up their sleeves to win big.” It has culminated in much more serious forms of duress, including, most seriously, the threat of loss of livelihood.

In Canada almost all employees of governments or public agencies now face the threat of job loss, and new vaccine mandates are being introduced almost daily. The government of Ontario, which had for months insisted it would never countenance a “split society,” changed its mind and announced a passport system. In the United States, President Biden recently announced vaccination will be required for all government employees and all health care workers at facilities that receive government funds; he has also directed the Department of Labor to order all companies with a staff of 100 or more to require employees to get the vaccine or take weekly COVID tests. The vaccination requirements are also providing a bully pulpit for judges. In Chicago, a judge recently ordered that a child be taken from its unvaccinated mother, and American judges elsewhere have reduced, commuted, or extended prison and probation sentences on the basis of vaccination status. All these bribes, threats, deprivations, and restrictions are intended to keep “the responsible vaccinated citizens” safe from the unvaccinated by denying the latter group basic social rights.

It seems undeniable that these measures violate the principle of informed consent. This deprivation of the right on which the very legitimacy of contemporary medicine depends is justified by the imminent threat to public health that the unvaccinated are said to pose. But if public health were the primary objective, wouldn’t the natural immunity that many possess as a result of previous COVID infection be recognized as equivalent to or, as a recent Israeli study shows, much better than vaccination? The fact is that in many jurisdictions natural immunity is not recognized. In these jurisdictions, excluding a handful of narrow exemptions, vaccination is required of everyone as a condition of citizenship and social participation, regardless of immune status. This requirement cannot but create suspicion that the vaccine agenda is driven by more than pure public health concern.

Then there’s the question of the effectiveness of the vaccines. One hears again and again that we are now in “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” but, in highly vaccinated Israel, the director of the Herzog hospital in Jerusalem told a television interviewer on August 5 that 85-90 percent of those currently being admitted to his hospital were fully vaccinated. He ascribed this number to the “waning” effectiveness of the vaccine. As of Oct. 1, Israel will require a third shot of those not vaccinated within the previous six months as a condition of receiving their vaccine passport, the Green Pass. This opens the prospect of what one writer has called “a vaccine treadmill.” In Ontario, at the time of writing, 30.1 percent of those testing positive for COVID have had at least one vaccination. In hospitals, 22.1 percent of non-critical patients and 19.4 percent of intensive care patients have also had at least one shot. This doesn’t mean that vaccination doesn’t work. It does mean that the vaccines have limited effectiveness that may wane quickly over time. We also know that the vaccinated can transmit the disease as readily as the unvaccinated. The vaccinated may, for the most part, get infected less frequently and suffer less severe illness when they do, but they will, when exposed, pass it on just as surely as the unvaccinated will. All these considerations argue that the differences between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are not as great as the advocates of shunning contend.

In short, forced vaccination is setting an ominous precedent. The vaccines are untried on the time-scale that would be necessary to establish even their relative safety. The threat of COVID, which pertains mainly to the old, is being aggregated across the entire population in order to impose vaccination on those at negligible risk. Dissident opinions have been censored and vilified, rendering dispassionate and disinterested discussion impossible. And the plurality of views that should properly characterize the sciences has been replaced by a dictatorial oracle called “the science.” All these concerns militate strongly against coercing the consciences of those who oppose vaccination on scientific, philosophical, or religious grounds. Coercion will only compound existing social division. Perhaps it would be better to start a conversation rather than continuing the 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.

David Cayley is the author, most recently, of Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey.

Featured image is from First Things

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The FDA held a Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting yesterday (September 17, 2021) to discuss authorizing a third Pfizer COVID-19 “booster shot.”

There were signs heading into the meeting this week that there could be some fireworks at this hearing, as two top vaccine research scientists at the FDA, Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Phillip Kause, the Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Vaccines Research, recently resigned.

This followed a report published in The Lancet from 18 officials at the FDA opposing the Biden Administration’s plan to start distributing Pfizer “booster shots” later this month (September, 2021) before the FDA had even approved them.

To say that there were fireworks at the Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting yesterday might be a gross understatement. The 18 member committee voted 16 to 2 AGAINST approving the booster shots, although later they did give their endorsement on approving them for people 65 and older.

During the “open session” part of the meeting, dissenting doctors questioning the Pfizer shots were given a chance to address the public with their concerns, and they presented to the public REAL data about the shots that up until now has been heavily censored.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency room physician from New Orleans who did his studies at Cornell Medical School, stated that there are no trials large enough yet to prove that the COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalization without causing serious harm.

He lamented the fact that the “vaccine hesitant” coming into his emergency room were more educated on the risks of the COVID-19 vaccine than those vaccinated.

 I know many think that vaccine hesitants are dumb, or just misinformed. That’s not at all what I’ve seen.

In fact typically, independent of education level, the vaccine hesitant I’ve met in the ER are more familiar with vaccine studies, and more aware of their own COVID risks than the vaccinated.

For example, many of my nurses have refused the vaccine despite seeing COVID-19 cause more death and devastation than most people have.

I ask them why refuse the vaccine?

They tell me while they’ve seen the first hand dangers of COVID, the elderly, the obese, diabetics; they think their risk is low.

They’re not wrong. A 30-year-old female has about a 1 in 7000 chance of catching COVID and being hospitalized over it.

He pointed out that a recent study showed that the risk of vaccine-induced Myocarditis (heart disease) in young males is higher than their risk from hospitalization from COVID.

He called for larger studies to be conducted.

We the medical establishment cannot confidently call out anti-COVID-19 activists who publicly claim the vaccines harm more than they save, especially in the young and healthy, the fact that we do not have the clinical evidence to say these activists are wrong, should terrify us all.

Steve Kirsch, the Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, also gave testimony, and he began his comments with:

I am going to focus my remarks today with the elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about, that the vaccines kill more people than they save.

He presented data to prove that the belief that these vaccines are “safe” simply isn’t true. He gives several facts to show this, most all of which we have previously covered here at Health Impact News.

For example, people have 71 times more risk of heart attack following COVID-19 vaccines than any other vaccine.

Kirsch claims that expert analysis of existing data, including the 6-month Pfizer trials and VAERS data, prove that the shots kill more people than they allegedly save.

About 411 deaths per million doses. That translates into about 150,000 people have died (from the Pfizer shots).

He then presented some data from the Israel Ministry of Health.

The real numbers confirm that we kill more than we save. And I would love to look at the Israel ministry of health data on the 90+ year olds where we went from a 94.4% vaccinated group to 82.9% vaccinated in the last 4 months.

In the most optimistic scenario it means that 50% of the vaccinated people died and 0% of unvaccinated people died. Unless you can explain that to the public you cannot approve the boosters.

Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, whom we have featured previously here on Health Impact News and has done extensive studies on the VAERS data, also gave a presentation where she showed that we have had a 1000% percent increase in adverse events following COVID vaccines, as compared to all previous vaccines in prior years, something we have covered extensively here at Health Impact News.

Listen to the presentations of these three doctors. This is from our Bitchute channel, and it is also on our Rumble channel.

Will the FDA and Biden Administration Approve the 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 “Booster shots”?

It is important to understand that this was an “Advisory” committee meeting, and they do not set policy. The FDA could still approve the 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 shot against the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

Also, these three doctors who shared the truth about the data are not part of that committee, but testified during the “open comments” section of the meeting.

But the fact that the FDA allowed their comments is very significant, as they are now in the public record.

There is obviously some infighting going on at the FDA regarding the Pfizer COVID-19 shots. What could be the reasons for this?

I see two potential reasons why this could be happening.

First, this could be a “drug war,” where Pfizer’s competitors are upset that Pfizer is getting so much of the market share on the COVID-19 vaccines, and they are applying pressure through their contacts at the FDA to start discrediting Pfizer and slow down their rapid race to dominate this market.

Or, secondly, people are starting to abandon ship on the Biden Administration as the current COVID-19 vaccine narrative is now falling apart very quickly, as hundreds of thousands of people are now screaming to have their voices heard regarding their negative experiences with the COVID-19 shots, and the FDA and others are trying to cover their butts in the event that there is a regime change and people start getting arrested for crimes against humanity.

I hope for the second scenario, but fear it is probably the first one.

If the Biden Administration and their handlers on Wall Street believe they are still firmly in control of this mass vaccination campaign that is really an act of genocide and crimes against humanity, then they will just go ahead and approve Pfizer’s third shot anyway, without the approval of this committee.

They will basically tell the American people and their business rivals that they know we are on to them, and that they don’t care because they believe that nobody is going to do anything to stop them.

We know what side the corporate media is on, as they continue to publish the lies that the unvaccinated are filling up hospitals and responsible for spreading COVID-19 variants, and of course they gave no press coverage to the dissenting doctors who testified at the Committee meeting yesterday (at least I did not find anything after doing a corporate media news search.)

Will America do what is necessary to fight these medical tyrants, who are the minority and could be easily overpowered if enough people resisted, or will the nation continue to stand aside and let them press on with their mass eugenics program to reduce the world’s population?

This is most certainly a turning point in human history, not just for the United States, but for the entire world.

*

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 is from HIN

Bluetooth Vaccine? Does the Injected COVID “Non-Vaccine” Connect with Devices?

By Makia Freeman, September 18, 2021

Is a bluetooth vaccine the next phase of weirdness associated with the rollout of the experimental COVID non-vaccines? Is bluetooth connectivity or compatability another effect of the vaccine?

The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right; It Is a “Poison-Death Shot”

By Mike Whitney, September 19, 2021

Did the regulators at the FDA know that all previous coronavirus vaccines had failed in animal trials and that the vaccinated animals became either severely ill or died?

The “Secret Agenda” of the So-called Elite and the COVID mRNA Vaccine. “Reducing World Population”?

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, September 19, 2021

Even the active euthanasia of elderly and sick fellow citizens by means of strong sleeping pills and opiates has already set these dark figures on their way.

Video: Towards Digital Tyranny. # Say No to the Covid Vaccine Passport

By Peter Koenig, September 18, 2021

Behind its development is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – with support of the Rockefeller Foundation – and others belonging to the sinister all-digitization, depopulation and eugenics agenda.

From 9/11 Truth to Covid Truth. Victories and Failures Twenty Years Later

By Michael Welch and James Corbett, September 18, 2021

The latest doc series from acclaimed film director Spike Lee might well have marked the most explosive upset of common and entrenched narratives around the September 11 attacks that we have seen in a long time – if ever.

Canadian Elections: Conservative Leader O’Toole’s COVID Plan: “Vaccines on Steroids”

By William Walter Kay, September 19, 2021

Beating Covid through testing requires designated testing teams at all border-points and airports. Under the Conservatives, all prospective entrants to Canada, citizen or not, will submit to one or more Covid tests.

Why Do the African People Oppose Big Pharma’s Experimental Injections?

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, September 19, 2021

Historically, German doctors experimented on the Herero women with “sterilization tests” in order to ban mixed-race marriages.  Fast forward to 1996, Big Pharma giant Pfizer conducted a clinical trial with a drug called trovafloxacin (Trovan) at the height of meningococcal meningitis outbreak in Kano, Nigeria.

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 19, 2021

The mental health of millions of people Worldwide has been affected as a result of the lockdown, social distancing, job losses, bankruptcies, mass poverty and despair. The frequency of suicides and drug addiction has increased Worldwide.

US Law Authorizes Secretive, National ’Exercises’ Against Public Health ‘Threats’

By Robert L. Kinney III, September 19, 2021

Within the 2019 U.S. Pandemic Act and other laws and documents, one may find language that can be interpreted as potential tip-offs that the U.S. government may have intended to coordinate with international governments and other entities to “convene” a falsified pandemic or somewhat covert pandemic “drill” or “operational exercise.”

The Winner in Afghanistan: China

By Prof Alfred McCoy, September 17, 2021

The collapse of the American project in Afghanistan may fade fast from the news here, but don’t be fooled. It couldn’t be more significant in ways few in this country can even begin to grasp.

31 Reasons Why I Won’t Take the Vaccine

By Rabbi Chananya Weissman, September 19, 2021

It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take a medical treatment for an illness I do not have.

In the Name of Humanitarianism, COVID Is Crushing Solidarity

By Jonathan Cook, September 19, 2021

Days ago the British government’s experts on vaccinations, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, withstood strong political pressure and decided not to recommend vaccinating children aged between 12 and 15. That was because the JCVI concluded that vaccination could not be justified in the case of children on health grounds.

George Grant and the Subversion of Canadian Nationalism

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, September 19, 2021

In order to fully comprehend the paradox of the Canadian identity sculpted by Grant in this and similar works, is to take a brief look at the man, as an imperialist, as a representative of an oligarchical Canadian family, a Rhodes Scholar.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Political talk show host Kim Iversen, on a segment of the Kim Iversen Show Wednesday, called the latest COVID data coming out of Israel “alarming and shocking.”

Iversen reminded viewers that Israel was nearly fully vaccinated by February, after striking a deal with Pfizer to make its citizens “essentially … a giant study group.”

“They have very high vaccination rates in the country,” Iversen said. “Kids are still not vaccinated. There are some super ultra-Orthodox holdouts, but otherwise everybody in Israel banded together and they took the Pfizer vaccine — two doses.”

But by summer, Iversen said, Israel health officials determined the vaccine had worn off. “They saw skyrocketing numbers of cases, even after they’d hit this so-called herd immunity threshold of 70%.”

At first, Iversen said, it looked as though the vaccines might at least be protecting against more severe symptoms, because for the most part, only the unvaccinated were having to be hospitalized.

“But then as time went on … the hospitals started to fill up with fully vaccinated people,” Iversen said, “and they saw more and more cases among the fully vaccinated, and more and more of them becoming very severe to the point where the majority of their cases in the hospitals and in the ICU and those dying were fully vaccinated people.”

Iversen has been tracking data in multiple countries besides Israel, including Iceland, Chile, Seychelles, Uruguay and others.

“I have a whole list of countries that I’ve been monitoring on this,” she said. “And it was really clear early on that the vaccine was not stopping the spread, but it did seem to keep people out of the hospital for a period of time.”

But then Israel found the vaccine was wearing off — so they told everybody they would need a third, booster shot, “in order to participate in society,” Iversen said.

That seemed to work for awhile — but now cases are rising again.

“I don’t know what to make of that, “Iversen said. “And I’m not going to speculate. I’m just going to share the data and I’m going to keep watching that data. And we’re going to see what happens. I mean, at this point, that’s all we can do. All we can do is see what happens now.”

Watch the segment here:

*

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 is from CHD

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Facing unrelenting criticism over the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden Administration is insisting that the United States will maintain a capability to launch airstrikes in Afghanistan, regardless of the legal limitations and possibility of perpetuating the war. 

The Biden Administration vows to keep in place an “over-the-horizon capability,” meaning that the United States will still be able to strike targets in Afghanistan from its military positions outside of the country.

“There isn’t a scrap of Earth that we can’t reach out and touch when we need to,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin remarked in comments to the press last week.

As part of the twenty-year U.S. global war on terror, the United States developed the capability to quickly launch airstrikes against many countries around the world. Officials say the U.S. military is currently exercising an over-the-horizon capability in several countries, including Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia.

“We run effective counterterrorism operations around the world where we know terrorism is more of a threat than it is today in Afghanistan, without any permanent military presence on the ground,” President Joe Biden acknowledged in a speech last month. “We can and will do the same thing in Afghanistan with our over-the-horizon counterterrorism capability.”

Now that the Taliban has taken control of Afghanistan, it is unclear whether the United States can legally exercise an over-the-horizon capability in Afghanistan, and it’s unlikely that the Taliban would permit the United States to launch airstrikes in the country, as the previous Afghan government had done.

Upon entering office, President Biden placed limits on counterterrorism drone strikes outside of conventional war zones. With the war in Afghanistan ending, the same restrictions could apply to Afghanistan, leading administration officials to rethink their plans.

For years, U.S. officials have justified airstrikes by citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which permits the President to use military force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Some officials have grown increasingly critical of the resolution, especially over the manner in which U.S. Presidents have used it as a dubious legal basis for the “forever wars” of the post-9/11 era. In a Congressional hearing last month, some members of Congress called for the use of force authorization to be repealed and replaced.

“The ‘01 [authorization] has been stretched beyond all recognition, in terms of its scope and reach, from what was contemplated when it was initially adopted,” said U.S. Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, in the hearing.

Periodically, the United States has set aside issues of legality to conduct airstrikes that have violatedinternational law. A notable example is the cruise missile attack that the Clinton Administration launched against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998.

Critics warn that airstrikes can cause tremendous harm, especially to civilians. Whistleblower Daniel Hale, who leaked classified information about the U.S. drone wars to The Intercept and is now serving a nearly four-year prison sentence, has repeatedly warned about the risks to civilians.

“When I finally left the military, still processing what I’d been a part of, I began to speak out, believing my participation in the drone program to have been deeply wrong,” Hale reflected in a letter that he wrote about his decision to blow the whistle.

In the twenty-year war in Afghanistan, thousands of civilians have been killed in airstrikes, with 700 killed in 2019 alone. Yet, no high-level U.S. officials have ever been held accountable for their role in directing attacks that have killed Afghan civilians.

Amid the chaos of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. military exercised its over-the-horizon capability in a way that demonstrated the dangers of the approach. Following the terrorist attack at the Kabul airport on August 26 that killed an estimated 200 people, the United States initiated drone strikes against targets without fully knowing who it was targeting.

On August 29, a U.S. drone strike killed ten civilians, including seven children. U.S. military leaders claimed to have targeted terrorists, with U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley calling it a “righteous strike,” but an investigation by The New York Times found no evidence to support these claims.

The man targeted in the strike was Zemari Ahmadi, an employee of a U.S.-based aid group that provides food and assistance to poor Afghans. Ahmadi was seeking refugee resettlement in the United States for himself and his family.

President Biden has said that it is time to end the “forever war” in Afghanistan, and after the drone strike that killed Ahmadi, he insisted that “the war in Afghanistan is now over.”

Some officials have quietly supported the President’s decision, despite the widespread criticism that he has faced from the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

“This war has no legitimacy anymore,” U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad commented last month at the Aspen Security Forum. “It’s just a struggle for a balance of power, dispensation of power between various factions, and no Afghan, especially civilian Afghans, should die because of that.”

By maintaining an over-the-horizon capability, however, the Biden Administration is bowing to its pro-war critics and continuing one of the cruelest aspects of the war, the deadly air campaign, which has already devastated the lives of so many Afghans.

*

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.

Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary.

Featured image is licensed under Creative Commons

Dear Readers,

We are living a major Worldwide crisis and at the same time we are living history. Over the past few months, independent media –including Global Research– has felt the sting of increased online censorship, in the form of a crackdown on news that challenges official government narratives.

Truth in media is a powerful instrument. On September 9, 2021, Global Research commemorated its 20th anniversary.

Despite media censorship, thanks to our core readers, Global Research has expanded its reach to more than 100,000 page views a day.

Global Research articles, however, are no longer picked up by the main search engines. What this means is that important articles in our extensive archive (since September 2020) of more than 100,000 articles are not easily accessible to our readers.

Referral of our articles through sharing, forwarding, posting on blog sites as well as crossposting have contributed to our objective of reaching out to a large readership worldwide.

At this juncture, we must ensure that truth in media and  freedom of expression prevail.

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.

Five to ten minutes a day. Let us know how you are proceeding. Feel free to send feedback to [email protected].

If you are pressed for time but would like to support Global Research as part of our September- October donation campaign, please consider making a donation, becoming a member, or purchasing a book from our online store.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

---

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

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 incisive article was first published on April 7, 2021

***

The universal right of Informed Consent to medical interventions has been recognized in US law since at least 1914.

1. That year, the New York Court of Appeals established the right to informed consent to medical intervention in a case involving non-consensual surgery.

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital 105 N.E. 92, 93 N.Y. (1914) Justice Benjamin Cardozo articulated the court’s reasoning:  

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”

2. The 1947 Nuremberg Code is the most important legal document in the history of medical research ethics. It established 10 foundational principles of ethical clinical research.

The first and foremost principle is unequivocal:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.

It prohibits research to be conducted on human beings without the informed consent of the individual.

The significance of the Nuremberg Code is as follows:

• The Nuremberg Code was formulated by prominent US government jurists in consultation with prominent US medical consultants;
• It had the multilateral agreement of the governments of the US, USSR, France and the UK;
• The Nuremberg Code extended human rights beyond the borders of individual countries;
• The right of Informed Consent is recognized in time of peace and in time of war.
• The Nuremberg Code provides legal justification to litigate violations of informed consent.
• Under the Nuremberg Code, responsibility for violations of informed consent rests upon individual doctors, government officials – and their aiders and abettors – each of who can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

3. In the wake of public disclosure of the U. S. government Tuskegee Syphilis experiment (1932-1972), the government convened the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission issued The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979).

The Belmont Report acknowledges at the outset that the Nuremberg Code “became the prototype of many later codes intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner.”

However, federal regulations only apply to government-sponsored human research and, unlike the Nuremberg Code these regulations have been “modified” in response to political pressure.  For example, 45 CFR 46.408(c)  waives parental consent for the use of children as human subjects. “This waiver is usually but not always limited to minimal risk research…”

4. The first US Supreme Court decision in which the Nuremberg Code was invoked was in 1987.  The plaintiff was a Sergeant in the US Army who sought compensation — having been a victim in a covert CIA-sponsored, LSD mind-control experiment.
US v. Stanley, 483 YS 669 (1987)

Justice Brennen wrote the dissenting opinion – joined by justices Marshal, Stevens & O’Connor:

• “In experiments designed to test the effects of [ ] LSD, the Government of the United States treated thousands of its citizens as though they were laboratory animals,
  dosing them with this dangerous drug without their consent. One of the victims,
  James B. Stanley, seeks compensation from the Government officials who injured him…
• …it is important to place the Government’s conduct in historical context.
  The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that
  experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable.The United States Military Tribunal established the Nuremberg Code
  as a standard against which applies to all citizens— soldiers as well as civilians.”

• Its first principle was: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.

5. In 1994, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was tasked with investigating and documenting the scope of unethical US government human radiation experiments. The (ACHRE) Report (1995) includes CIA mind-control experiments and devotes two chapters to the Nuremberg Code, and describes the growing influence that the Nuremberg Doctors Trial and the Nuremberg Code had on the American medical establishment.

Whereas in the 1949 edition of the best-known textbook of American medical jurisprudence, Doctor and Patient and the Law by Louis Regan a physician and lawyer, did not even cite the Nuremberg Code, devoting merely a few lines to the subject of human experimentation, in the 1956 edition, the subject was expanded to three pages, and the judges’ preamble to the Code was reiterated verbatim (without quotation marks). Dr. Regan added, “all agree” about these principles. They are “the most carefully developed set of precepts specifically drawn to meet the problem of human experimentation.”

The ACHRE report notes that: “while the [Stanley] suit was unsuccessful, dissenting opinions put the Army–and by association the entire government–on notice that use of individuals without their consent is unacceptable. The limited application of the Nuremberg Code in U.S. courts does not detract from the power of the principles it espouses…”  ACHRE Report Chapter 2 & Chapter 3 (1995)

6. In 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeal explicitly cited the Nuremberg Code as a source of legally enforceable ethical standards in the case against the Kennedy Krieger Institute.

The case involved a government lead abatement experiment that exposed inner city Black toddlers to lead paint. The purpose was to record the damaging effects of lead.

The parents were not informed about the purpose or the risks.

Grimes / Higgins v Kennedy Krieger Institute, Maryland Court of Appeals, 366 Md 29; 782 A2d 807 (2001)

“The researchers and their Institutional Review Board apparently saw nothing wrong with the search protocols that anticipated the possible accumulation of lead in the blood of otherwise healthy children as a result of the experiment, or they believed that the consents of the parents of the children made the research appropriate.”

“Of special interest to this Court, the Nuremberg Code, at least in significant part, was the result of legal thought and legal principles, as opposed to medical or scientific principles, and thus should be the preferred standard for assessing the legality of scientific research on human subjects.   Under it, duties to research subjects arise.

The Nuremberg code [i]s a summary of the legal requirements for experimentation on humans The Code requires that the informed, voluntary, competent, and understanding consent of the research subject be obtained.   Although this principle is placed first in the Code’s ten points, the other nine points must be satisfied before it is even appropriate to ask the subject to consent.

The Nuremberg Code is the ‘most complete and authoritative statement of the law of informed consent to human experimentation.’   It is also ‘part of international common law and may be applied, in both civil and criminal cases, by state, federal and municipal courts in the United States.’  

7.  In 2009, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Southern District of New York cited the Nuremberg Code as:

• “the universally accepted norm in customary international law regarding nonconsensual medical experimentation.”

The case involved Pfizer which conducted an unapproved, trial of its experimental antibiotic, Trovan on children in Nigeria. The court found Pfizer guilty.

• Rabi Abdullahi, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d (2d Cir. 2009)

“Among the nonconsensual experiments that the tribunal cited as a basis for their convictions were the testing of drugs for immunization against malaria, epidemic jaundice, typhus, smallpox and cholera. Seven of the convicted doctors were sentenced to death and the remaining eight were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment.

The American tribunal’s conclusion that action that contravened the Code’s first principle constituted a crime against humanity is a lucid indication of the international legal significance of the prohibition on nonconsensual medical experimentation.”

Telford Taylor explained,“Nuernberg was based on enduring [legal] principles and not on temporary political expedients, and this fundamental point is apparent from the reaffirmation of the Nuernberg principles in Control Council Law No. 10, and their application and refinement in the 12 judgments rendered under that law during the 3-year period, 1947 to 1949.”  

8. In 2013, the US Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle of informed consent in a case involving a citizen who refused to consent to a blood test. A blood sample was taken against his will on orders of a police officer. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff — even as the justices recognized that both privacy and harm were minimal. Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013)

“this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into
the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…”

9. On March 1^st Isaac Legaretta, a New Mexico Detention Center Officer filed the first US Lawsuit Over Mandatory Covid Vaccines. DOCKET: No. 2:21-cv-00179 

His attorney Ana Garner told Bloomberg News: “You can’t be forced to be a human guinea pig. We have the right to bodily integrity.”

10. On March 7th an Israeli citizens group filed a a petition to the International Criminal Court charging the Israeli Government with violating the Nuremberg Code with its mandatory Vaccination policy

Anshe Ha-Emet (People of the Truth) a fellowship, composed of Israeli doctors, lawyers and citizens, filed a complaint against the government national “medical experiment” without the informed consent of the citizens. Attorneys Ruth Makhachovsky and Aryeh Suchowolski filed the complaint stating:

“When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the prime minister presented the vaccine in Israel and began the vaccination of Israeli residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that, in practice, they are taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required for this under the Nuremberg Code”.

UPDATE:

On March 19^th a group of researchers from Norway have filed a lawsuit charging the Norwegian government corona policy is a Crime Against Humanity. under the leadership of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and his team of investigators and lawyers. Read the English translation here or download the official document (in Norwegian) here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from AHRP

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published by Global Research on May 18, 2021

***

What are the roots of the transhumanist movement that is currently shaping so much of today’s Zeitgeist under such themes as Elon Musk’s Neuralink, Ray Kurzweil’s “singularity point”, and Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution?

In this Escaping the Brave New World Podcast, Chained Muse Editor David Gosselin and Canadian Patriot founder Matthew Ehret unpack the deeper history of transhumanism, Artificial Intelligence and the philosophical roots of the Great Reset by reviewing the eugenics movement that birthed both Adolph Hitler and many of the governing structures of the post-WW2.

Among the most powerful of these power structures whose roots are founded in a deeply embedded commitment to eugenics and world government are: Julian Huxley‘s creation of the United Nations’ Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), G. Brock Chrisholm‘s role in creating the World Health Organization (WHO), John Rawling Rees‘ creation of the World Federation of Mental Health and the disturbing ideas of Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener in the creation of a new science of social control called “cybernetics”, “machine-learning” and “transhumanism”.

Investigating these interconnected pro-eugenics social engineers and the institutions they created after WWII, takes us into a broader discussion of the battle in science and philosophy going back to the ancient dispute between Plato who believed in the immortality of the soul [see: Phaedo and Meno] vs Aristotle who asserted that human beings were nothing more than blank slates to be written upon by a hereditary master class [see: Politics].

This clash between two opposing paradigms of humanity, and Natural Law itself was replicated many times throughout history, with special emphasis on the debates between the 18^th century renaissance scientist Gottfried Leibniz vs his opponents Isaac Newton [see: The Leibniz-Clark Correspondence], René Descartes [see: Specimen Dynamicum] and John Locke [see: New Essays on Human Understanding]. Each of Leibniz’s opponents represented imperial world views which demanded that mankind be defined as a soulless automaton made in the image of a soulless, immoral universe and its creator. The political-economic corollaries should be obvious to all thinking citizens.

The Platonic-Leibnizian worldview was again brilliantly taken up in the 19^th century by none other than Abraham Lincoln’s leading economic advisor Henry C. Carey in his 1872 Unity of Law: Relations of Physical, Mental and Moral Sciences as he challenged the neo-Aristotelians blank slate agenda of his day which took the form of misanthropic statisticians Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin whose “might makes right” theories of society and biology were being used to justify the British Empire. To this point, Carey stated:

“Mr. Malthus was led to invent a law of population by means of which to relieve the rich and powerful from all responsibility for the existing state of things; giving them assurance that the poverty and wretchedness by which they were everywhere surrounded had resulted from the fact that the Creator had sent upon the earth large numbers of people for whom He had provided no table at which they might be allowed to eat, no materials by aid of which they might be clothed; thus furnishing the theory by aid of which subsequent writers have been enabled, as they supposed, to prove that, in the British Islands, man had become “a drug” and “population a nuisance”.

During this podcast, David and Matt review this sweeping battle by taking a close look at the 1900 Conference on the Future of Mathematics which saw mathematicians Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert demand the creation of a new all-encompassing closed system logic to impose upon the entire universe and human systems.

How was this project advanced over the ensuing decades? What role did Russell’s student Norbert Wiener play in this? How did Kurt Godel creatively throw a wrench in Russell’s project? How did MK Ultra fit into this operation between 1952-1972? What did a Jesuit Priest named Pierre Tailhard de Chardin have to do with this and how did T.H. Huxley’s grandchildren Aldous and Julian carry on the family torch?

All of these questions, and much more are explored in this episode of Escaping the Brave New World Podcast. Listen below.

From BitChute:

*

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.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and in 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from the podcast presentation

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The overall trend is that the EU is taking the formulation of a comparatively more independent security policy a lot more seriously than before after this month’s series of interconnected events involving the US. It’ll remain a work in progress and one which will likely take a lot of time to produce tangible results, but the gears are now in motion and might lead to a series of flagship projects aimed at enabling the bloc’s members to more confidently ensure their collective security.

Major American Moves

Three interconnected events from the past month will greatly influence the EU’s future security policy. These are the West’s panicked withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US’ assembling of the new trilateral AUKUS military alliance with Australia and the UK, and America’s withdrawal of its Patriot missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia.

The first prompted leading officials to propose the creation of a so-called “Initial Entry Force” (IEF) of 5,000 troops comprised of its members’ militaries to serve as the proverbial tip of the spear during crisis situations like the one that recently transpired in the war-torn South Asian state. The second showed that the US is still cutting secret security deals behind its nominal EU “ally’s” back, which includes backstabbing the bloc’s influential French member by poaching a AUS$90 billion submarine deal with Australia from it. The third development shows that America’s security assistance to its allies can’t be taken for granted anymore.

The China Factor

What ties all three of these events together is the US’ obsession with “containing” China. In pursuit of this grand strategic goal and with an eye on the finite resources that it can rely upon to this end, America is compromising on some of its traditional allies’ security in order to redirect its focus from the EU, South Asia, and West Asia to East and Southeast Asia. This explains its decision to pull out of Afghanistan despite sharp criticisms from its Western coalition partners, work behind its European allies’ back in order to prioritize the formation of a new military alliance in the Asia-Pacific, and abandon Saudi Arabia in spite of continual drone and missile attacks against the Kingdom from Yemen’s Ansarullah (“Houthi”) rebels. The US simply cannot operate on all three of these fronts at once with equal focus like before since the former unipolar world order is fading and giving way to the emerging multipolar one in which America’s relative capabilities have decreased.

This is extremely concerning from the standpoint of the EU’s traditional security concerns since its pertinent policies are predicated on the presumption that the US will always provide the bloc with reliable military support through NATO’s Article 5. While America still claims that it’ll remain loyal to that legal obligation, questions are swirling throughout Brussels about whether Washington is truly sincere with such pledges in light of the three earlier mentioned developments over the past month. These fears are influencing the bloc’s gradual formulation of a comparatively more independent security policy. This is of course a lot easier said than done due to the colossal logistical, political, and technical obstacles involved, but it’s nevertheless a trend that deserves to be analyzed a bit more at length even if it’ll still take a long time to unfold in any seriously tangible way.

The EU’s Interest In “Missile Defense”

The IEF is a step in the direction of meeting some of the EU’s most immediate envisioned security needs, but among the most comprehensive ones in the minds of its decision makers is the issue of so-called “missile defense”. Thus far, this was assumed to be ensured by the US in order to protect the bloc from relevant threats allegedly coming from Iran and North Korea, though Russia has always claimed that America’s justification for the deployment of such systems in Europe is nothing more than a smokescreen for clandestinely undercutting its nuclear second-strike capabilities. Moscow has explained these concerns by pointing to how unlikely it is that either of those two countries would target the EU, even US military assets within it, and drawing attention to the fact that Washington could also deploy offensive weaponry at those sites under the cover of supposedly being “defensive” ones in order to enhance its nuclear first-strike capabilities against Russia.

Be that as it may, two decades’ worth of incessant information warfare against EU decision makers and their people alike have convinced the vast majority of them that “missile defense” is one of the continent’s top security concerns. This means that it could very well figure as the flagship project of the bloc’s forthcoming comparatively independent security policy that it’s in the long process of formulating. After all, in their minds, the US is becoming too unreliable of a partner as evidenced by President Joe Biden practically continuing most of his predecessor Donald Trump’s geopolitical policies with respect to Afghanistan and Australia, both of which show how little American leaders care about their European allies’ concerns. Saudi Arabia is the exception in this comparison since Trump was fully committed to its security while Biden is backtracking on it presumably in pursuit of a more comprehensive regional deal with that Kingdom’s Iranian rivals.

The Strategic Importance Of The Saudi Precedent

The Saudi case study is extremely important from the perspective of the EU’s “missile defense” concerns though since prior reports proved that America’s pertinent systems there failed to perform as expected. While Patriots are supposed to have a somewhat different function from the other equipment deployed as part of the US’ “shield” in Europe, it still set a very troubling precedent by showing that America’s wares can’t be fully relied upon. If “missile defense” is to become the flagship project of a comparatively more independent EU security policy in the eventual future, then its members will have to commit massive amounts of time, money, and effort towards improving upon the shortcomings of their much more technological advanced American ally’s systems, but this prediction shouldn’t automatically put people off. Cynically speaking, all of those hefty investments might actually be regarded as something positive from the position of EU politicians.

Ulterior Motives

If the bloc strives for unity between its members, then they’ll all have make some commitment to this project, which could deepen integration between their permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”). The EU’s military-industrial complex also aims to become globally competitive, and with various dimensions of “missile defense” emerging as a need for many countries, it could eventually pay off handsomely if the bloc credibly enhances its capabilities in this respect and becomes a leading exporter of such systems in the future. The financial investments to this end could also provide many high-paying jobs to qualified specialists who’d have to pour years’ worth of their lives into learning the difficult ins and outs of “missile defense”, which is such an extremely tricky science that not even the US has been able to perfect it despite being decades ahead of the EU in terms of research, testing, and battlefield experience.

Perhaps most importantly from a grand strategic perspective, any moves in the direction of independently ensuring the EU’s security needs as the bloc’s decision makers understand them to be (irrespective of whether observers agree with them such as when it comes to the contentious issue of “missile defense”) would accelerate the emergence of the Multipolar World Order by bolstering the continent’s credentials as a separate pole of influence/power in this system. As it presently stands, the sovereignty of most EU members and the bloc as a whole is questionable since most are regarded as being under American control, with France possibly being the only major exception but also Germany too to a lesser extent at least when it comes to Nord Stream II. The Franco-German condominium could thus strive to become the dual core of multipolar processes within the EU, using the shared goal of “missile defense” as the means to militarily advance this across the bloc.

“The Polish Problem”

There were previous concerns that Poland and the “Three Seas Initiative” that it leads could stand in the way of this goal by being exploited as a pro-American wedge for dividing the bloc between its Eastern and Western members. Those worries might be mitigated though in light of America’s abandonment of this aspiring Central & Eastern European (CEE) leader. Washington waived most Nord Stream II sanctions without informing Warsaw of this decision in advance, and the US and Germany continue to wage their joint Hybrid War on Poland in order to oust its conservative-nationalist government for ideological reasons. If Poland’s ruling party falls like some expect it to eventually do, then the country would be fully captured by the German “deep state”, thus neutralizing the chances that the US could exploit it as a wedge. This suggests that Biden’s ideological crusade against Poland is actually counterproductive in the long term, though his strategists have yet to realize it.

The so-called “Polish Problem” could also be resolved without regime change if Warsaw decides to wean itself off of Washington as its primary security partner after feeling betrayed by its ally’s pragmatic engagements with Moscow as of late. Berlin is no better from Poland’s perspective, especially that of its ruling conservative-nationalist party, but Warsaw might wager that it’s less risky to depend on regional allies through a more concentrated security framework than on its transatlantic one. This calculation seems unlikely though as long as Poland’s ruling party remains in power, but it can’t be discounted that such thoughts might be circulating through its strategic community at the moment in light of the three interconnected events that were touched upon earlier in this analysis. The US’ laser-like focus on “containing” China is arguably occurring at the expense of some of its European allies’ security concerns, which might inspire Poland’s gradual security recalibration.

Concluding Thoughts

The overall trend is that the EU is taking the formulation of a comparatively more independent security policy a lot more seriously than before after this month’s series of interconnected events involving the US.

It’ll remain a work in progress and one which will likely take a lot of time to produce tangible results, but the gears are now in motion and might lead to a series of flagship projects aimed at enabling the bloc’s members to more confidently ensure their collective security. The IEF will probably be the most immediate outcome while efforts towards collaborating on the EU’s own “missile defense” systems could potentially be a long-term one, especially when considering the US’ abandonment of Saudi Arabia and the poor performance of its pertinent equipment there before that. Looking forward, the path ahead will be long, difficult, and expensive, but the EU might have finally turned the psychological corner when it comes to eventually ensuring its own security.

*

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 on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A 2019 federal law raises concerns that the U.S. government may be engaging in large-scale COVID-19 ‘drills’ without alerting the public.

Previous articles mentioned that leading up to the reported COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. federal government made multiple actions on laws governing pandemics, including U.S. laws governing pandemic preparedness “drills and exercises.”

This article will focus on the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019, which was passed by Congress and signed into law on June 24, 2019, only a few months before COVID-19. That law describes requirements for the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022.

Within the 2019 U.S. Pandemic Act and other laws and documents, one may find language that can be interpreted as potential tip-offs that the U.S. government may have intended to coordinate with international governments and other entities to “convene” a falsified pandemic or somewhat covert pandemic “drill” or “operational exercise.”

The information may be seen as additional support for the claim that the COVID-19 pandemic may be partially or completely falsified.

Pandemic Act enhances gov’t legal authority to prepare for pandemics

A previous article briefly discussed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 (henceforth referred to as the “Pandemic Act of 2019”). There may be much more to the Pandemic Act of 2019, and the legal authority it provides, that needs to be discussed. A U.S. federal government summary explains that the Pandemic Act of 2019

amends the Public Health Service Act to build on work the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has undertaken to advance national health security. Amendments include enhancing the authorities of the Secretary [of the Department of Health and Human Services], Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response [ASPR], and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. (emphasis added)

Thus, the Pandemic Act of 2019 amends the Public Health Service Act and enhances the authorities of several persons and entities “to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies.” Separately, the U.S. government explains that the Public Health Service Act

forms the foundation of HHS’ [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’] legal authority for responding to public health emergencies; it authorizes the HHS Secretary to lead all Federal public health and medical response to public health emergencies.

It is important, then, to keep in mind that there is legal authority “to prepare for…public health emergencies;” that legal authority is mentioned in U.S. laws which will be discussed in this article. Among those with legal authority “to prepare for…public health emergencies” is the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).

It is also important to keep in mind some distinctions; there are U.S. federal laws which govern the legal authority of the HHS, CDC, ASPR, NIH, etc., to prepare for and respond to pandemics. Then there are U.S. federal laws which require a U.S. National Health Security Strategy and describe the necessary requirements (“provisions”) to be put in that National Health Security Strategy document.

And it will be elaborated on in a moment that the National Security Strategy 2019-2022 and the Implementation Plan include provisions which could be interpreted as suggesting that “convening” a response to a planned pandemic exercise (potentially a falsified pandemic) is part of the health security preparedness strategy.

Pandemic ‘preparedness’ may be evaluated through gov’t ‘drills…without notice’

One part of U.S. law mentioning the provisions to be put in the National Health Security Strategy is the following:

The National Health Security Strategy shall include provisions in furtherance of…integrating public health and public and private medical capabilities with other first responder systems, including through…the periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice (emphasis added; paragraph lettering and numbering omitted for ease of reading)

It is interesting to note the use of the words “without notice.” The wording can be interpreted to mean covert and secret pandemic “drills and exercises,” since “without notice” literally means “no notice” of the drill or exercise.

The law does not specify whether without notice refers to before the drill or exercise or both before and after the drill or exercise. As it is written, the law seems to refer to no notice before or after the drill or operational exercise is completed; a drill or exercise which occurs without informing those involved would be a covert or secret drill or exercise.

Another part of U.S. law which should be kept in mind is the law which gives legal authority to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the Department of Health and Human Services to

Carry out drills and operational exercises, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other applicable Federal departments and agencies, as necessary and appropriate, to identify, inform, and address gaps in and policies related to all-hazards medical and public health preparedness and response, including exercises based on…identified threats for which countermeasures are available and for which no countermeasures are available; and…unknown threats for which no countermeasures are available. (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–10; emphasis added)

As it is written above, it appears that when the U.S. laws governing pandemic preparedness mention “preparedness” or something similar, the laws seemingly imply that “drills or operational exercises” may be convened to evaluate such preparedness.

To evaluate federal or national preparedness, a national “drill or operational exercise” may be implied. And, as mentioned above, at least some of those drills or exercises may be carried out “without notice.”

2018 amendment wanted ‘comprehensive, synchronized’ pandemic ‘drills’

Interestingly, before the Pandemic Act of 2019 was passed by Congress, in 2018, multiple versions of what eventually became the Pandemic Act of 2019 were introduced. Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-R) introduced multiple versions in the House of Representatives.

Mrs. Brooks was reportedly a “moderate” Republican who was considering seeking the gubernatorial nomination from Indiana’s Republican Committee as a successor to Mike Pence. On June 14, 2019, she announced she would not run for re-election to the House of Representatives in 2020, which was reportedly an unexpected shock. (The Pandemic Act of 2019 was passed on June 24, 2019).

One version of the bill sponsored by Mrs. Brooks interestingly proposed amendments to the aforementioned section which gave the ASPR authority to “carry out drills and exercises.” The amendment, emphasized below, with an abridged portion of the old law, reads that the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) shall:

Carry out drills and operational exercises, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense…including exercises based on…identified threats for which countermeasures are available and for which no countermeasures are available; and…unknown threats for which no countermeasures are available. Such drills and operations exercises shall be comprehensive, synchronized, and mutually supportive.

And the ASPR shall:

Coordinate with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and other relevant Federal officials, such as the Secretary of Agriculture, to maintain a current assessment of national security threats and inform preparedness and response capabilities based on the range of the threats that have the potential to result in a public health emergency. (Page 4; proposed amendments are emphasized)

To propose an amendment to the legal authority of U.S. government public health officials to carry out pandemic drills and operational exercises by adding the sentence, “Such drills and operations exercises shall be comprehensive, synchronized, and mutually supportive” is, at minimum, either an attempt to increase/enhance legal authority or specify that the U.S. government believes that it already has the legal authority to carry out large-scale or “comprehensive” pandemic drills and exercises.

In other words, in 2018, about a year before COVID-19, there was a clear intent of some lawmakers to either enhance legal authority or make it known that the legal authority already exists for ASPR and the HHS to “carry out” “comprehensive, synchronized, and mutually supportive” pandemic “drills and exercises” in coordination with the CDC, Director of National Intelligence, National Security Advisor, and others (because “preparedness” may be evaluated with “drills or exercises”).

This may be a big deal, because it may serve as a tip-off as U.S. government officials attempting to ensure that they are legally covered for their future plans of COVID-19 being a falsified pandemic, or a “comprehensive” pandemic drill or “operations exercise” carried out by the ASPR in consultation with the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, etc.

The second proposed amendment (which was passed in the final Pandemic Act of 2019) also enhances the legal authority the ASPR to “carry out drills and operational exercises” in coordination with the CDC, Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor, because, again, “preparedness…capabilities” may be evaluated with “drills and operations exercises.” United States’ national “preparedness capabilities,” therefore, apparently may be evaluated with a national pandemic “drill or exercise.” (“Pandemic” implies “ongoing” spread of disease; therefore, a pandemic exercise would also likely be ongoing).

Notably, the amendment with the sentence including “comprehensive, synchronized, and mutually supported…” etc. was removed from the final bill, but the next paragraph (“Coordinate with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of National Intelligence…” etc.) remained in the 2019 law. (S. 1379—38)

Pandemic Act enhances authority for exercises related to pandemic threats from abroad

But the Pandemic Act of 2019 also appears to enhance the U.S. government’s authority for carrying out pandemic “drills and operational exercises” by amending the section regulating the National Health Security Strategy document.

In the Pandemic Act of 2019, the section of the law (42 U.S.C. 300hh–1) which allowed for the National Health Security Strategy to “include provisions” for “the periodic evaluation of federal preparedness…through drills or exercises…without notice” was amended to allow for developing public health “disease situational awareness…and related information technology activities,” improving coordination to respond to outbreaks of “zoonotic diseases,” and permitting “health security threats from abroad to inform [United States’] domestic public health preparedness and response capabilities.” (S. 1379—3)

This may be a big deal also because, remember, federal or national “preparedness” may evaluated with federal or national “drills or operational exercises.” And public health security “disease situational awareness…and related information technology activities” would seemingly include the data of the numbers of cases and deaths from an epidemic or pandemic.

And “zoonotic diseases” includes COVID-19, which reportedly is a “health security threat from abroad.”

In other words, the amendments in the Pandemic Act of 2019 – amendments mentioning “information technology activities,” “zoonotic diseases,” and “health security threats from abroad to inform…preparedness” – could be seen as an attempt to provide legal authority for a pandemic operational exercise enacted by using false “information technology activities” (false death and case data) of a false “zoonotic disease” (COVID-19) which (in this scenario) would be a false “health security threat from abroad” (China).

Those are subtle but significant amendments: the amendments at least indirectly enhance the U.S. government’s authority to carry out pandemic “drills and exercises” by amending requirements to be specified in a separate document, the U.S. National Health Security Strategy document.

The amendments can easily be seen as an attempt to provide more legal authority for U.S. government public health officials and others to falsify a pandemic – or “carry out [pandemic] drills and operational exercises.”

If COVID-19 is a falsified pandemic, it would have probably required falsified federal “information technology activities” (data) like COVID-19 death counts and COVID-19 cases. Pandemic laws in the U.S. already allowed for federal pandemic “drills and exercises.”

Thus, those amendments in the Pandemic Act of 2019 could be read as U.S. public health officials attempting to make sure their upcoming falsified COVID-19 pandemic “operational exercise” was legal.

To summarize: the 2018 proposed (and then rejected) amendments to allow for “comprehensive, synchronized, and mutually supported” pandemic drills and operations exercises combined with the Pandemic Act of 2019 approved amendments which enhance the ASPR’s authority to carry out pandemic drills and exercises could be seen as an attempt by certain U.S. federal government officials to legally cover themselves for an intended upcoming pandemic “drill or exercise…without notice” at the federal/national level; in this case, such a falsified pandemic may be COVID-19. (Other provisions further discuss international coordination, but those will not be mentioned here).

National health strategy includes objective to ‘convene’ a national response

Now, space does not permit much more discussion, but there are significant statements in the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 and the Implementation Plan which could be read as additional tip-offs or mention of a foreseen national pandemic operational exercise (which could potentially be the falsification of the COVID-19 pandemic).

In the U.S. government’s own words the National Health Security Strategy Implementation Plan

guides whole-of government action to support federal, and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners—as well as public and private partners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academia, professional associations, communities, families/family units, and individuals—to advance the capabilities needed toaddress current risks and prepare for an array of new, evolving threats. (Page 1; emphasis added)

And how is the U.S. government guided to “prepare for” pandemics? Under objective 1, the Implementation Plan explains:

Achieve a unified, whole-of-government approach in preparing and responding to health security threats by evaluating and integrating federalresources to bolster SLTT public health and health care capacity, includingcommunity, family/family unit, and individual resilience, incident management, information management, countermeasures and mitigation, surge management, and biosurveillance. (Page 3; emphasis added)

So the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 Implementation Plan mentions “evaluating…federal resources.” But, how is this “evaluation” performed? One has to remember 42 U.S.C. 300hh–1 (discussed above) to answer that question:

the periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities [may be achieved] through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice

And the 2019-2022 Implementation Plan may indeed subtly imply future plans for a national pandemic exercise, as underneath Objective 1, the Implementation Plan reads:

Provide the leadership to improve national preparedness and convene a unified, national response to public health emergencies and disasters (Page 3; emphasis added)

The wording may be read as an order or a directive: objective 1 is achieved by “improv[ing] national preparedness and conven[ing] a unified national response to public health emergencies and disasters.” When studying U.S. government documents, one may find that the word “convene” is often used as a directive to perform an intended action.

An example is the November 4, 2016 President Obama Executive Order on Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda. President Obama wrote:

…I hereby direct the National Security Council staff, in accordance with the procedures and requirements in Presidential Policy Directive 1 (or any successor directive), to convene a GHSA Interagency Review Council (Council) to perform the responsibilities described in this order…

More government documents, including one from the Department of Health and Human Services, have “convene” used as a directive of an intended future action.

Is the wording “convene a unified, national response…” in the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 Implementation Plan a subtle directive to evaluate preparedness for a pandemic or other public health emergency with a national pandemic drill or operational exercise?

The National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 implements the Public Health Services Act and the amendments made to it, and those are U.S. laws. Including such wording “convene a national response” in a strategy required by law may make one wonder if the intent is to use the wording as legal authority to convene a falsified pandemic drill or exercise.

The National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 (which is distinct from the Implementation Plan) uses similar language; under the “Strategic Approach” title, the following subtitle is given:

Convene a Unified, National Response and Recovery to Public Health Emergencies and Disasters (Page 10)

The document proceeds by explaining the ASPR’s and the HHS’ authority to prepare and respond to public health emergencies. Remember, “preparing” for pandemics may include “evaluation…through drills and exercises” and potentially “drills and exercises…without notice.”

So it seems that the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 may also be subtly mentioning a potential national pandemic drill or operational exercise.

There is still more that could be mentioned here which suggests the possibility that U.S. government public health, national security, intelligence community, and other officials were preparing for a long-term national and international pandemic “drill or operational exercise.”

It is still possible that multiple major coincidences occurred before and in conjunction with COVID-19; however, it is necessary to continue looking into the possibility that COVID-19 is actually a falsified pandemic carried out under the purported legal authority of U.S. government officials to evaluate pandemic preparedness with pandemic drills or operational exercises.

*

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 is from Shutterstock.com

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“Canada originally was put together by two groups of people who didn’t have much in Common, but did not want to be Americans”

The above words taken from a 1973 interview of George Grant present a remarkable irony: One of the most influential founding fathers of the “new nationalism’ which arose with Canada’s 1963 ouster of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and rise of a New Liberal Party under Walter Gordon, and Lester Pearson, is a man who never described what Canada is in any positive measure, but merely what it wasn’t. Grant’s influential, lie-ridden life’s works culminated in his 1965 Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, and served as an attack upon the collective psyche of young Canadians who were in the midst of watching a post-JFK America fall under the influence of a British-steered imperial policy, and economic policy beginning with the war in Vietnam.

In order to fully comprehend the paradox of the Canadian identity sculpted by Grant in this and similar works, is to take a brief look at the man, as an imperialist, as a representative of an oligarchical Canadian family, a Rhodes Scholar.

George Grant was among the members of a growing hive of Rhodes scholars which had infiltrated most all branches of policy making, business, media and academia in Canada since the foundation of the scholarship in 1902. Grant’s philosophical thoughts were broadcast in all forms of print, radio and televised media from 1949 to the end of his life in 1988. Born into two interconnected ‘elite’ families of Canada, Grant’s destiny was relatively predetermined by forces which were in a certain sense beyond even his control, and a brief survey of some key family members and their assigned roles in the misshaping of Canada and the world will be useful before addressing the lies embedded in the life’s devotion of George Grant. This exercise will also help the modern historian to get a better sense of the pedigree of Canadian oligarchism, its evil culture as peons of an older, more powerful strain of Anglo-Dutch oligarchism and the currents which have caused the distorted nationalism now so heavily conditioning Canadian perception and behaviour.

A Family of Imperialists

George’s paternal grandfather George Munro Grant was a lifelong advocate of Imperial Union and a key figure in ensuring the inclusion of the Province of Nova Scotia into the 1867 Confederation which ensured that Canada would not adopt a constitution similar in substance to that of its republican neighbour. For his services to the British Empire, Grant was made Principal of Queen’s College from 1877 until his death in 1902.

Image on the right: George Parkin (Public Domain)

George Grant’s maternal grandfather was the infamous imperialist George Parkin, the Canadian whom Lord Alfred Milner had later credited with providing aim and mission to his life during their mutual stay at Oxford in 1873-1874 (alongside a young Cecil Rhodes). Parkin made himself a world’s leading voice for imperial union, explaining in his 1891 gospel Imperial Federation that such a program was the only means to save the British Empire, then on the verge of collapse during the second half of the 19th century.

George Parkin became Principal of Upper Canada College in 1895, and left his post to become the first secretary of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust after the death of Cecil Rhodes in 1902.  The Rhodes Scholarship was designed to fulfill the intention of Rhodes’ seven wills which called for domination of the “inferior races” to Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the ultimate recapturing of America by creating a controlled indoctrination system for young talent from around the world that would receive their conditioning in the halls of Oxford University.

Parkin maintained this powerful position until his death in 1922. From this post, Parkin worked closely with Lord Alfred Milner in setting up Round Table movements across all British colonies beginning officially in 1911. Each Round Table branch was controlled by a central Round Table command post in London’s Foreign Office. In this way, a common strategy for shaping an imperial policy for the colonies (then longing for sovereignty modelled on the American System), could be attained. It was through this vital instrument that the British Empire was able to coordinate the 1911 ouster of the Lincoln-inspired Prime Minister of Canada, Wilfrid Laurier. [3]

Parkin had early on encountered a talent in the form of a young Canadian aristocrat named Vincent Massey. In 1911, Massey who was then a student in Ontario became instrumental in forming youth branches of the Round Table Movement at the University of Toronto. After his valuable services to the Empire, Massey was then sent by Ontario-based Round Table controller Arthur Glazebrook to Oxford to be trained directly under Alfred Milner, a self-described “race patriot”[4] and collaborator of George Parkin,  who was already renowned for seducing young Oxford men to the quasi-religious cause of the British Empire[5].

Massey went on to become the most influential of George Parkin’s sons-in-law when he married one of Parkin’s four daughters 1915. Massey not only a played a key role in shaping Canada’s political and cultural landscape for the next fifty years, but also gave a young George Grant his first major promotion as a scholar after World War II.

Aside from Massey, a brief overview of the Parkin daughters and their husbands provides the historian with a valuable insight into the breeding habits of a Canadian oligarchical dynasty which has vastly misshaped the evolution of Canada during the following century.

George Parkin’s second daughter Maude married the son of George Munro Grant named William. William Grant was the Beit Lecturer at Oxford (1906-1910) and later Massey teacher at St. Andrews University. He was the headmaster of Upper Canada College, and a major guiding force of the Round Table Movement. After 1919, William became the head of the Canadian Branch of the League of Nations Society[6], and also a director of the Massey Foundation after its formation in 1918 [7]

George Parkin’s third daughter Marjorie married a Rhodes Scholar named J.M. Macdonnell who went on to become both a financier as President of National Trust as well as the head of the Canadian Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, recruiting another Rhodes Scholar to become Secretary of the Rhodes Trust by the name of Roland Michener [8]. Macdonnell became a Cabinet Minister under the Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, where he worked alongside fellow Rhodes Scholar and Minister of Justice Davie Fulton to undermine Diefenbaker’s “Northern Vision” program for Arctic development, W.A.C. Bennett’s program for continental water management with the United States and Daniel Johnson’s program for Hydro Power development in Quebec [9].

George Parkin’s fourth daughter Grace married Henry Wimperis, a leading British aeronautical engineer who played an influential role working for the 1946-1950 Atomic Energy Study Group for the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) [10].

George Parkin’s only son named George Raleigh Parkin, who also became a major financier heading up Sun Life Insurance after returning home from his Oxford indoctrination, and then becoming a leading member of the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA).

George Grant’s New Nationalism and Vincent Massey

As early as 1945, while the Canadian identity was increasingly being shaped by the United States’ four term Roosevelt Presidency’s belief in scientific and technological progress and unbounded growth, Grant was making a name for himself as an exponent of a new model of Canadian nationalism founded not upon cooperation with America, but rather by solidifying its “British Conservative” traditions against trends of American progress. Writing in “Have we a Nation?”, Grant wrote:

“For unless we know why we exist, unless we know what we are trying to build here in Canada, unless we make a conscious effort to build it- we will inevitably be shaped by the REPUBLIC. There always has been and always will be an alternative to building a Canadian nation. And that is submerging of our nation in the USA”. [11]

What Grant is describing is a trajectory that had gripped the Canadian imagination as an effect of the close collaboration which Canada shared with Franklin Roosevelt before and especially during the course of World War II known as “continentalism”. Having nothing to do with the perverse continentalism of NAFTA[12] and the World Trade Organization promoted today, but rather the continentalism which posed such fear and hatred in the hearts of the Rhodes Scholarship nests and their London masters.

This continentalism represented an outlook based upon the large scale application of scientific and technological progress to overcoming obstacles to human development that exceeded mere national barriers. From the period of 1945-1963, the policies of large scale water management as seen in the Quebec hydroelectric power projects and B.C.’s Columbia River Treaty as a gateway to NAWAPA were among the most ambitious programs which Canadian patriots, working alongside their American colleagues were excited about building. Similarly, Arctic development powered by a full nuclear power system as the new frontier of human civilization and a space-based economy founded upon exploration and discovery were also a high priority for North American nation builders and the world.

Grant’s reputation as an enemy of both continentalism and scientific and technological progress, resulted in his being catapulted to national recognition by the procurement of his services by his uncle Vincent Massey in 1949. Grant’s service came in the form of a commissioned appendix to the Royal Commission on the National Development of the Arts, Letters and Sciences chaired by Massey and his French Canadian collaborator George Henri Lévesque. Lévesque was a Dominican priest and Belgium trained social engineer who was charged with the task of secularizing the province of Quebec to prepare the culture for integration into a Brave New World [12].

In his 1949 essay, Grant called for the overhauling of the Canadian educational system in accordance with the political agenda that UNESCO’s Julian Huxley had assigned to Massey and which later resulted in the creation of the Canada Council in 1957. This Council, modelled on a British template, was necessary in order to “scientifically” manage Canadian culture and education. The imperialists’ justification of this overhaul of education, used a technique of asserting, without any relevant proof whatsoever, that there exists an absolute dichotomy between the mankind’s emotional nature and thinking character, or in the language of Grant, of the “contemplative/static life” and the “active/changing life” [13]. After such a dichotomy was assumed between the “two cultures” of arts, and applied science, then an argument could be constructed upon which the amplification of the static life and diminishing of the active life in the composition of society as a whole could be arranged. For this purpose, Grant fulfilled his role to the full satisfaction of his uncle and British masters.

Grant notes ruefully:

“In some universities in English-speaking Canada, there are four times as many people teaching physics as teaching philosophy, and three times as many people teaching animal husbandry… the prime reason, no doubt for this state of affairs in Canada is the fact of our short history, most of which has been taken up with the practical business of a pioneering nation. Such a society must put its energies into those pursuits that will achieve material ends. The active rather than the contemplative life perforce becomes the ideal. Anything that will effectively overcome hardship must be welcomed with enthusiasm. That concentration on material ends and admiration for the man of action continues for a long while after it has ceased to be a necessity.” [14]

After asserting that the unfortunate idealizing of the active life is both purely materialistically (and not philosophically/spiritually) driven, Grant assumes again without any evidence, that a time can come whereby action ceases to be a necessity. This assertion made, Grant goes on a full frontal attack on the very notion of optimism, and manifest destiny itself:

“…A pioneering society in which there are obvious material accomplishments open to all men of average intelligence leads to an optimism about the universe much like the optimism associated with youth. The tragedy and complexity of maturity are not so evident as in an ancient and more static society. When the spiritual difficulties of maturity arise, the cry of ‘Go west, young man’ can help individuals to avoid them. It is out of a sense of tragedy and uncertainty more than anything else that the need for philosophical speculation arises. A young nation in its sureness and confidence is thus basically unphilosophical.” [15]

Thus Grant’s conclusion is that not only does the optimism in the universe and mankind stem from a naïve and unmatured spirit, but that the pioneer spirit itself is merely an escape from thinking about the tragic complexity of life confronted by the likes of such “matured” British conservative thinkers as Charles Darwin and Thomas Malthus. In Grant’s world, an active life imbued with a sense of universal optimism in conquering the obstacles of nature through progress, is intrinsically un-philosophical! Compare that to the pioneering spirit of Abraham Lincoln’s economic adviser Henry C. Carey who directed his energies to destroy this fallacious assumption of British thinkers by attacking both Malthus and Darwin by name in his 1871 Unity of Law:

““Here was further proof of the universality of natural laws- the course of man, in reference to the earth at large, being thus shown to have been the same that we see it now to be in reference to all the instruments into which he fashions parts of the great machine itself. Always commencing with the poorest axes, he proceeds onward to those of steel; always commencing with the poorer soils, he proceeds onward toward those capable of yielding larger returns to labor; increase of numbers being thus proved to be essential to increase in the supply of food. Here was a unity of law leading to perfect harmony of all real and permanent human interests, and directly opposed to the discords taught by Mr. Malthus… Reflecting upon this, he [Carey speaking in the 1st person] was soon brought to expression of the belief, that closer examination would lead to development of the great fact, that there existed but a single system of laws; those instituted for the government of inorganic matter proving to be the same by which that matter was governed when it took the form of man, or of communities of men.” [16]

When seen through the eyes of Henry C. Carey and all similar American System statesmen, the nature of politics, economics and culture are united in mankind’s powers to improve the universe, and in so doing, improving himself in so far as discovering ever more perfectly, the laws of creation and his own unique identity as a mirror of the macrocosm. An economy and a law is not, in the mind of Carey, a “thing”, but rather a process of creation! This is the fundamental secret which the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy and its managers have been trying to obscure and whose solution lies in the universal physical principle of increase in energy-flux density and holds the keys not only to the reason/emotion paradox, but mankind’s salvation still today.

Returning to Grant’s sophistry, the question then arose: where would we ever find such teachers of the passive arts such as philosophy, and music, if the Canadian pioneering tendency active since 1878, has prevented its existence up until now? Grant answers his question:

“One difficulty of having Englishmen as our leading teachers of philosophy must however be mentioned. As has been said earlier, these men were teaching at a time when the conception of the contemplative arts was being radically assailed in Canada. The fact that the men who were deeply involved in keeping this conception alive were generally men bred in Great Britain often meant that they were unable to transpose the vital issues of philosophy into sufficiently Canadian terms to make them of burning interest to young Canadians.” [17]

Thus the desired teachers are men bred unsurprisingly in Great Britain! But sadly, the lack of sensitivity to the Canadian cultural matrix identified by Grant has kept these teachers from sufficiently influencing the Canadian mind and achieving the desired “matured tragic culture of stasis” for which Grant yearned. Towards the conclusion of his essay, Grant lets his call to action (ironically to stop the active life) spring forth blatantly.

“The question will be decided by whether our political leaders and civil servants, our business men and educators come to see more clearly the long term advantages of training our able youth in a contemplative life as well as an active approach to life. It will depend indeed on whether they see the incalculable advantages that will pertain to any society which has a contemplative tradition strong enough to act as a brake on the rightly impetuous men of action. In the world we live in the need of such an influence should become increasingly apparent… The tragedy must be admitted that, just as the controlling forces in our western world are beginning to understand how deeply our spiritual traditions need guarding, and that some of our energy must be diverted from technology towards that purpose, our society is being challenged to defend itself against a barbaric Empire that puts its faith in salvation by the machine.” [18]

Thus in order for society to save itself from the “barbaric Empire that puts its faith in salvation by the machine”, men of the contemplative life must be created in a strong enough intensity such that they may “act as a brake on the impetuous men of action”. True to form, Grant asserts that this would be a self evident benefit without ever producing a single piece of evidence [19].

The Massey Commission’s Relevance for Social Engineering

The Massey Commission was a key player in the MI6/CIA orchestrated Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) operation which had begun in 1949 in order to “de-Nazify” both Europe and the Americas and promote a culture which was conditioned to assume that the very act of judging right and wrong would no longer be possible without risking the rise of new Hitlers (wasn’t it after all, the very act of judging that let Hitler make absolute statements about truth which caused the war?) Anyone who spoke of “truth”, had to thus be categorized as an authoritarian personality and fascist [20].

The Massey Commission provided a conceptual blueprint for the creation of mechanisms which were necessary to halt, to the highest degree possible, all influence of American newspapers, magazines, radio services, television programming, and films from being accessed by the Canadian mind by establishing draconian quota systems. This quota system made much U.S. media extremely difficult to come by in Canada for decades. Taking over responsibility for the financing of arts, culture, humanities and social sciences from the Rockefeller and Carnegie philanthropies that had primary monopoly on financing of such programs both in America and Canada [20], the Canada Council ensured that centralized federal control over the school system and its curricula could then artificially create a “demand” ” by the federal financing of the ugly and arbitrary in the arts while promoting a humanities/social science system, which was directed to fragmenting all concepts of intellectual truth from aesthetical beauty.

The social sciences and humanities approach promoted by UNESCO, the OECD, the imperial philanthropies and now the Canada Council, were based on treating cultural behavioral characteristics as “things” in and of themselves, not as ephemeral processes driven by ideas of universal principles. The ideological underlying assumption was that Arts and Sciences are based on innovation in the domain of sense perception effects as opposed to discoveries of universal physical principles generated by the creative human mind.  These “things” were rather treated as subspecies of bugs and fauna analyzed by an anal biologist, whereby radical statistical-based descriptions of patterns (which themselves were nothing more than the shadowy effects of deeper principles) could be modelled, and commented upon ad infinitum without any danger of discoveries of universal principle ever being made again. The power of creative reason was effectively cut off from the “techniques” of science and art under this model, and a new culture of a master “managerial” class and “popular” slave class was established, based exclusively on the belief in sense perception effects.

Lament for a Nation and the Diefenbaker Paradox

By 1965, Grant’s services were again procured by Massey and financed (as most of his works) through the Canada Council in the writing of a highly influential little book called “Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism”[22]. His work was designed to create a line of reasoning that would both condition the thinking of the intellectual class of Canada and polarize an emotionally terrorized youth culture to reject the “American Empire” to the south. What Grant obviously left out, is that it was MI6/Chatham House networks in both Canada and America (to which he was an integral part) that had orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 [23] and had re-activated the imperial tendencies after his death, beginning with the war in Vietnam. In his 1970 edition Grant updates his introduction with the following words of warning  to Canadians:

“The central problem for nationalism in English-speaking Canada has always been: in what ways and for what reasons do we have the power and the desire to maintain some independence of the American empire?… on the surface it is certainly much easier in 1970 than it was in 1963 for Canadians not to want to be swallowed by the U.S. The years of the Vietnam war have been an exposition of the American empire.” [24]

Grant’s work can be considered clinically Delphic, simply because of the conscious lies used to advance his exposition such as the belief that the American System’s focus upon the sacredness of individual liberty and personal initiative was directly inspired by the British imperial philosophers John Locke and Adam Smith, or that the American system is intrinsically incompatible with the Common Good, even though its very constitution is built upon that premise [25]. The core of Grant’s Delphic concoction is the paradox of “progress without change.”  He would like to have both worlds, active and contemplative. He would like to have Canada be both American and British. He can’t have them both, because those two chosen words which form the core of his ideology, “active” and “contemplative” are shadows of two irreconcilable realities which are the American System and the British Imperial System, respectively. And the two cannot live as one.

With these and similar blatant lies affirmed as unquestionable truth, Grant went on to create an irony which never really existed in the first place: that both America and Canada having so many differences in custom and identity, were each birthed by British imperial thinkers! Following his 1949 Massey Commission thesis, Grant sets his logical Delphic construct on another artificial irony, which is that while Canada’s origins are rooted in British Conservativism (ie: inclined to the contemplated life of appreciating fixed traditions and things as they are), America is intrinsically Capitalistic, active and progress-driven. Canada’s only hope in fending off the American Empire, claimed Grant, is found in recapturing our British conservative traditions where he wrote:

“ Our hope lay in the belief that on the northern half of this continent we could build a community which had a stronger sense of the common good and of public order than was possible under the individualism of the American capitalist dream. The original sources of that hope in the English Speaking part of our society lay in certain British traditions which had been denied in the American revolution. But the American liberalism which we had to oppose, itself came out of the British tradition- the Liberalism of Locke and Adam Smith.” [26]

Thus after assuming an unbridgeable incompatibility between the common good and public order of British traditions and individual freedom of America, Grant’s book unfolds as a series of fallacies built upon each other. Grant’s work begins by a Delphic overview of the failure of the Canadian Nationalist policy from the time of its first creation under John A. Macdonald 1879 to the downfall of Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1963.

He laments Diefenbaker’s downfall as the proven failure of Canadian nationalism and argues that it was Diefenbaker’s attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable by promoting a spirit of British Conservativism and anti-Americanism on the one side, while promoting a love of individualism and progress on the other. Restating his “truth” of the irreconcilability of the changing and non-changing, and the failure of Diefenbaker, Grant wrote:

“The practical men who call themselves conservatives must commit themselves to a science that leads to the conquest of nature. This science produces such a dynamic society that it is impossible to conserve anything for long. In such an environment, all institutions and standards are constantly changing. Conservatives who attempt to be practical face a dilemma. If they are not committed to a dynamic technology, they cannot hope to make any popular appeal. If they are so committed, they cannot hope to be conservatives.”  [27]

This in fact is an anomalous paradox of Canadian history, typified by Diefenbaker’s genuine love of progress while simultaneously loving the monarchy and British conservative traditions into which he was born. Diefenbaker’s strident admiration for both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt clashes with his constant appraisals of British greatness and also provides a key insight into the reason for the failure in the relationship between himself and John F. Kennedy. Diefenbaker’s tragic character embodies such a common characteristic personality type in Canadian history that can be henceforth called the “Diefenbaker Paradox”.  Diefenbaker’s only hope of resolving his own paradox involved a discovery of principle embedded in the American system which was absolutely absent in all aspects of the British system [28].

In the year following the publication of Lament for a Nation, Grant wrote his 1966 Philosophy in the Mass Age where he acknowledged a key influence upon his thinking when he described the evil philosopher Leo Strauss “as the greatest joy and that most difficult of attainment is any movement of the mind (however small) towards enlightenment, I count it a high blessing to have been acquainted with this man’s thought” [29]. Strauss’s now well documented role as the ideological founder of neo-conservatism as an “authority” on both Plato and Aristotle as analyzed through the perverted eye of Friedrich Nietzsche provides an additional insight into Grant’s life’s work [30].

It is relavent to here point out that it was Grant’s inability to resolve the Diefenbaker Paradox, and his own oligarchical mindset which drove him down the dark path of Nietzsche and Strauss. If the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that mankind is found in a universe of law, and yet which is constantly changing, is not resolved by an axiom destroying discovery of principle, then the tragic victim, like poor George Grant, will invariably fall upon the path of Nietzsche, Strauss and Aldous Huxley.

Grant in 1973: Letting out his Nietzschean Inner Huxley

In a widely broadcast CBC interview in 1973 with Ramsey Cook, Grant, the self-professed “Christian philosopher”, threw his allegiances in with the author of “The Antichrist”… the god-hating existentialist Friederich Nietzsche, whom Grant admiringly admits shared his belief in the incompatibility of technological progress and change with traditional beliefs of truth that were intrinsically unchanging. To this effect, Grant said:

“This is why I so greatly admire a philosopher who is not much admired in the English speaking world, yet who I think was a very great philosopher- Nietzsche. I think he saw this early with enormous clarity- that modern science was an amazing theoretical and practical achievement, yet saw how killing it was to man.” [31]

Grant’s sophistical argument that science is a homogenizer of society was transparently laid out in his next breathe:

“it [modern science], sees the world entirely as ‘object’, and the world as object is the same one place as another… the point is that at the heart of science is summoning forth things to stand before them, to give them REASONS, that is to be OBJECTS for them and objects are the same everywhere! Now in that sense, scientific society led to homogenization”

After laying out his view of the spiritual, and political world of man, and his assumption that reason and object are really the same thing, Grant then giddily began to speak of his “prediction” of the future of the “American Empire” and the new tyranny of his world state:

“I think one of the strange things with modern tyranny is it’s not going to appear often very nasty… Well let me tell you what I think the tyranny of the United States is going to be, at sort of a late state capitalist stage. It’s going to be the mental health state. It’ll be the tyranny of the mental health organization.

Cook: This all sounds very Orwellian. Is Orwell a thinker in your camp?

Grant: I would be closer to old Huxley. I think Brave New World is a much clearer… I think its going to be done in a much smoother way, if you know what I mean. You’ll be able to control with the morning after birth control pill, and water control so you’ll have to get a license to get children… Orwell’s is much too violent. I think the violence will be much much smoother.”

Certainly, if “reason” and “object” are supposed to be synonymous, then the British Imperial view of Grant and his “world state” must logically follow from his premises as a necessity… however fortunately for humanity, this formulation is anything but true. As any discovery of principle has demonstrated (whether it is Kepler’s discovery of the harmonic relations of planetary orbits, Mendeleev’s harmonic ordering principle of the elements, or Bach’s discovery of Well-Tempering expressed in his Well-Tempered Clavier series): all universal physical principles, and thus all efficient causes of progress,  are in fact the causes of directed change in the universe and the cause of mankind’s ability to progress beyond all relative states of carrying capacity.

Forming a Real Canadian Nationalism

The real science of human self-organization based upon a self conscious understanding of the real principles guiding human evolution is not based on a materialist conception of science devoid of spirit, nor a spiritual conception of art devoid of matter. It is here useful to revisit the Renaissance concept of the self-perfectibility of man as made in the living image of the creator, and has established a new science called Physical Economy. As Physical Economy is a demonstrable field of science advancing upon the work of Alexander Hamilton and Henry C. Carey, the American System of Political Economy can no longer be said to be simply “American”, but rather universal, in that it is applicable by all people of all nations and cultures who strive with an honest intention for a better tomorrow through the wise application of the most advanced fruits of creative thought at humanity’s disposal, regardless of any monetary constraints.

The commitment to humanity’s ongoing successful survival in a creative, anti-entropic universe is the only pre-requesite for the modern nationalist. Without an intention that is in harmony with a rigorous commitment to discoverable truth, and the moral commitment to fight to apply those discovered truths to change the system in which mankind is operating for the better, and without end, then all talk of nationalism and sovereignty is but an empty shell.  An echo of 1 Corinthians 13 is here heard:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

Do we love our children and neighbours enough to fight for a human cultural policy which will provide them the means to live as men and women, instead of greedy and fearful beasts? Do we love truth more than our comfort to the point that we will let go of axioms which held us back from experiencing the joys of participating in the immortal process of mankind’s transformation into a mature species of directed action within and upon a directed and acting universe?

If we choose to take the challenge of stepping into the currents of history, not to simply be moved, but rather, to apply our creative energy towards contributing something durable and meaningful to the immortal unfolding of beauty and creative evolution, then how may we re-amplify those currents of thought past, which have held within them the seeds to a better future?

These are the questions that a true Canadian Patriot must be able to answer.

*

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.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and in 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

Notes

[1] George Grant, Interview from CBC’s Aug. 3, 1973 Impressions with Ramsey Cook, available on CBC Digital Archives http://www.cbc.ca/archives/discover/programs/i/impressions/impressions-of-george-grant.html

[2] This was a policy which Kennedy, following the advice of former President Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and French President Charles de Gaulle, was adamantly against falling into. Before his death, Kennedy had even commissioned the National Security Action Memorandum 273 to pull remaining U.S. “military advisers” out of Vietnam entirely.

[3] Robert D. Ainsworth, The End of an Era: Laurier and the Election of 1911, University of Ottawa, 2009. Ainsworth quotes a letter from Laurier upon his ouster which reveals much: “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”

[4] Upon his death, Milner’s Credo was published in the London Times of July 25, 1925 with the words: “If I am also an Imperialist, it is because the destiny of the English race, owing to its insular position and long supremacy at sea, has been to strike roots in different parts of the world. I am an Imperialist and not a Little Englander because I am a British Race Patriot … The British State must follow the race, must comprehend it, wherever it settles in appreciable numbers as an independent community. If the swarms constantly being thrown off by the parent hive are lost to the State, the State is irreparably weakened. We cannot afford to part with so much of our best blood. We have already parted with much of it, to form the millions of another separate but fortunately friendly State. We cannot suffer a repetition of the process” [of loosing America a second time –ed]

[5] These young men, many of whom went onto lead the Round Table Movement, and its later transformations such as Philip Kerr, and Lionel Curtis, were known as Milner’s Kindergarten. In a letter dated Aug. 11, 1911, Glazebrook wrote to Milner:

“I have given a letter of introduction to you to a young man called Vincent Massey. He is about 23 or 24 years of age, very well off, and full of enthusiasm for the most invaluable assistance in the Roundtable and in connection with the junior groups… He is going home to Balliol, for a two year course in history, having already taken his degree at the Toronto University. At the end of his two years he expects to return to Canada and take up some kind of serious work, either as a professor at the university or at some other non-money making pursuit. I have become really very attached to him and I hope you will give him an occasional talk. I think it so important to get hold of these first rate young Canadians, and I know what a power you have over young men. I should like to feel that he could become definitely by knowledge a Milnerite”[cited in  Carrol Quigley’s Roundtable Group in Canada, Canadian Historical Review sept 1962, p.213]

[6] The League of Nations Society was formed as it was increasingly becoming clear that the earlier 1911-1919 Round Table Blueprint for Imperial Union was considered too circumspect by patriots striving for true independence from British intrigues. Although vigorously encouraged by the Anglophile racist President Woodrow Wilson, most American patriots rejected its logic of world governance, and the abolishment of sovereignty. Canadian Patriots following the American lead such as Chubby Power, Ernest Lapoint and O.D. Skelton battled valiantly to ensure that even the new League of Nations doctrine of World Governance would also fail.

[7] The Massey Foundation was a philanthropic fund created by Vincent Massey after inheriting the estate of his father, Hart Massey. This foundation was modelled on the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations then active in financing cultural and educational programs favoring population control, eugenics and other practices favorable to an oligarchic society.

[8] Governor General Michener became the legal Canadian Head of State, appointed by Queen Elizabeth II in 1967 and served until 1974 during which time, he was instrumental in establishing the Canadian Branch of the Malthusian Club of Rome alongside Pierre Trudeau and his cabal of social engineers

[9] For the full stories, see the Canadian Patriot #4 and #5.

[10] Wimperis was also a close collaborator of Sir Henry Tizard, chairman of the British Defense Research Policy Committee who Naomi Klein had exposed to have been involved in 1951 meetings at Montreal’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel with the CIA and Canada’s Omand Solandt to “discuss” brainwashing. Naomi Kleine, Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Knopf Canada, 2007, p.33. Solandt went onto play a key role alongside Senator Maurice Lamontagne and Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the overhaul of Canada’s science policy in the 1960s.

[10] George Grant, Have we a Nation?, Institute of Public Affairs, Dalhousie University, 8/3, Spring 1945, p.162

[11] The North American Free Trade Agreement pushed by the World Trade Organization, the City of London and Wall Street to “homogenize” society via a vast takedown of national structures of regulation and protection of local business. Catalyzed by the 1971 takedown of the Bretton Woods system of global fixed exchange rates, then followed by a slow, but consistent movement to greater de-regulation, and market thinking, this trend vastly accelerated with Margaret Thatcher’s 1986 “Big Bang” de-regulation of banking, followed by NAFTA, and then the Maastricht Treaty which created the Euro as a single currency union undermining all European national sovereignty. The next major point of acceleration occurred with the 1999 takedown of Glass-Steagall in the USA and the 2000 de-regulation of over the counter derivatives.

[12] Lévesque was trained in Lille France and in Belgium with the same Dominicans who became the teachers of the Uriage experiment of  that created the Dominican Fascist Youth Movement: L’Ordre Nouveau. See Pierre Beaudry’s Book II of The Modern Synarchy Movement of Empire.Downloadable at  http://amatterofmind.org/Pierres_PDFs/SYNARCHY_I/BOOK_II/2._SYNARCHY_MOVEMENT_OF_EMPIRE_BOOK_II.pdf

[13] This is not a new oligarchical technique but one which is recorded as far back as Plato who wrote his brilliant Parmenides dialogue in order to force a crisis in the mind of the reader to tackle this paradox of the changing and non-changing. This is a paradox which neither Grant, Massey, nor any imperialist who conceptualizes man as an animal has ever had any hope in resolving. Since the time of Babylon, this has been the formula used for the creation of synthetic cults under the Delphic method.

[14] George Grant, Royal Commission Studies: A Selection of Essays Prepared for the Royal Commission on the National Development of the Arts, Letters and Sciences, Ottawa, Edmond Cloutier, Printer to King 1951, p. 119-133

[15] Op cit. p. 124-125 [5-6]

[16] Henry C. Carey, Unity of Law: Relations of the Physical, Mental and Moral Sciences, Philedelphia, 1872, p.8

[17] Op cit. p. 12

[18] Op cit. p. 19, note: This is the typical Dominican Thomas Aquinas distinction between “Viva activa” and “Viva contemplativa,” which had been the Delphic plague of the Middle Ages in offering people the choice between the monastery contemplation and its contempt for the world, and the active militarization of the dumbed down population for the Crusades

[19] This is how stopping creativity leads to genocide. Welcome to the fascist New World Order of reducing the world population from 7 to 1 billion people

[20] This is a nice paradox: If you fight for the truth, you are an authoritarian; but if you say there is not truth, you create a fascist society of morons controlled from the top-down

[21] For the full story on Wall Street philanthropies financing and shaping the (ironically anti-American) Canadian identity from 1911-1957, see Rockefeller, Carnegie and Canada: American Philanthropy and the Arts and Letters in Canada by Jeffrey D. Brison, McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005

[22] George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto, 1965, [2nd print with new introduction by Grant 1970]

[23] See the Canadian Patriot #5 for the full story

[24] Op Cit, introduction p. VII

[25]  The Preamble of the American Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

[26] Op Cit. introduction p. X

[27] Op Cit. p.66

[28] For the whole story, see Diefenbaker and the Sabotage of the Northern Vision by the author, published in The Canadian Patriot #4, Jan. 2013

[29] George Grant, Philosophy in the Mass Age, University of Toronto Press, 1995 [1st print 1965], p.122

[30] See The Secret Kingdom of Leo Strauss by Tony Papart, published in the April 18, 2003 Executive Intelligence Review downloadable here: www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2003/leo_strauss/3015secret_kingdom_ap_.html

[31] This and all following quotes by Grant are taken from the Aug.3, 1973 CBC interview, accessible on CBC Digital Archives:  http://www.cbc.ca/archives/discover/programs/i/impressions/impressions-of-george-grant.html

---

Appendix

Grant’s anti-Creative Necessity of the World State and the Crushing of Quebec

In George Grant’s Lament for a Nation, Grant had already begun showing his adherence to the techniques of mind control elaborated by Aldous Huxley in the Brave New World blueprint for a New World Order when he wrote:

“The aspirations of progress have made Canada redundant. The universal and homogeneous state is the pinnacle of political striving. “Universal” implies a world-wide state, which would eliminate the curse of war among nations; “homogeneous” means that all men would be equal, and war among classes would be eliminated. The masses and the philosophers have both agreed that this universal and egalitarian society is the goal of historical striving. It gives content to the rhetoric of both Communists and capitalists. This state will be achieved by means of modern science- a science that leads to the conquest of nature.”  [1]

Grant describes his view of the meaning of “conquest of nature” in the following paragraph: “Today scientists master not only non-human nature, but human nature itself. Particularly in America, scientists concern themselves with the control of heredity, the human mind, and society. Their victories in biochemistry and psychology will give the politicians a prodigious power to universalize and homogenize” [2]

Grant’s idea of the mastery of nature through the sciences has nothing to do with the increase of human potential as is obliged by the American System, but rather of “heredity manipulation, psychology and social control”. Grant’s notion has more to do of the mastery of slaves by masters than the mastery of nature by man. After dwelling on various obstacles to this world state, Grant addresses the problem of the Catholic French Canadian view of man which needed to be crushed as it was incompatible to his utopian model:

“French Canadians must modernize their educational system if they are to have more than a peon’s place in their own industrialization. Yet to modernize their education is to renounce their particularity. At the heart of modern liberal education lies the desire to homogenize the world. Today’s natural and social sciences were consciously produced as instruments towards this end…What happens to the Catholic view of man, when Catholics are asked to shape society through the new sciences of biochemistry, physiological psychology and sociology? These sciences arose from assumptions hostile to the Catholic view of man… Quebec will soon blend into the continental whole and cease to be a nation except in its maintenance of residual patterns of language and personal habit” [3]

Since the “sciences” of the imperialist that focuses upon psychology, biochemistry and social engineering are all based upon the rejection of the concept of mankind as a species endowed with a soul and made in the image of the creator, as is found at the heart of Catholicism, an amputation of these Christian principles from the Quebec culture had to be undertaken beginning with the educational reforms then being applied by Father Lévesque’s social scientists from Laval University assigned to overhaul Quebec with the 1960-66 `Quiet Revolution`. Rhodes Scholar Paul Gérin-Lajoie was assigned the role of creating the Quebec Ministry of Education for this explicit purpose. Today’s Quebec nationalism is little more than Grant’s description of a society whose identities are found merely in their language and personal habits, but not in true progress and its causes.

Notes

(1) George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto, 1965, [2nd print with new introduction by Grant 1970], p. 53

(2) Op. Cit. p. 54

(3) Op. Cit. p.79 and 84

Featured image is licensed under Fair use

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

On 17 September 2021 Iran has become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It is an extraordinary achievement and new beginning for US and western sanction-badgered Iran. Transcript of Press TV interview with Peter Koenig.

PressTV: Iran is finally a member of the SCO. It is said that this solidifies a block to stand up to the West and US hegemony: will it be able to do that, and is the era of unilateralism over?

Peter Koenig: First, my deepest and heartfelt congratulations for this extraordinary event – Iran the latest member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – SCO.  Bravo!

Yes, this will definitely open new doors, prosperous doors with new relations in the East. SCO with the current membership covers close to 50% of the world population and accounts for about one third of the world’s GDP.

Being a member of this organization, will take a lot of pressure away in terms of western sanctions, western impositions, monetary manipulations via the US dollar as a remedy for payment.

No more.

Iran is now free to deal in her own currency and in Yuan as well as in any currency of the SCO members, because western-type trade currency restrictions do not exist in SCO member countries.

This will drastically reduce the potential for US / western sanctions and will increase on the other hand, Iran’s potential to deal with the East, i.e., especially China and Russia; entering partnership agreements with these and other SCO countries, benefitting from comparative advantages. It may open-up a new socio-economic era for Iran.

Also, in terms of defense strategy – although SCO is not a military defense organization per se, but it offers strategic defense assistance and advice – and as such is a solidifying force for member countries.

SCO also respects countries’ autonomy and sovereignty – and facilitates trade arrangements between member countries.

Having said this, Iran must not lose sight of potentially disrupting internal factors, like the so-called Fifth Columnists – those who will keep pulling towards the west, and they are particularly dangerous as infiltrates in the financial sector, Treasury, Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, and so on. They are everywhere, also in Russia and China. But internal Iranian awareness and caution will help manage the risks and eventually overwhelm it. Russia has gone along way in doing so. And so has China. And so will Iran. I’m confident.

Again, excellent momentum to celebrate. Congratulations!

PressTV: Iran will also be part of the different regional bodies in neighborhood regions, including Eurasia, that could spontaneously break the “sanctions wall” and lead to diversified fruitful foreign relations. Does this mean the US sanctions will not be as effective?

PK: Yes, absolutely. Regional bodies and trading arrangements within Eurasia – such as the Eurasian Economic Union – has an integrated single market of 180 million people and a GDP of some 5 trillion dollars equivalent and growing. It covers eight countries of which 3 have observer status.

Other than trading with the members of the Eurasian Economic Union, the EAEU also has trading agreements as an entity with other countries, for example with Singapore.

Then there is maybe the most important trade deal in world history, the ten ASEAN countries, plus China, as well as Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand but not the United States. Thus, no dealings in US dollars, no potential for US sanctions. This Trade Agreement is called The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It was signed in November 2020 on the occasion of the annual summit of the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

RCEP countries have a combined GDP of US$ 26.2 trillion or about 30% of global GDP, and they account for nearly 28% of global trade (based on 2019 figures). Total population of RCEP countries is 2.3 billion, roughly 30% of the world’s inhabitants.

Negotiation of this trade deal took 8 years. The longest ever. And it will of course, take time to reach the full potential of integrating the sovereign countries economies. In contrast to the European Union, RCEP will to the utmost possible preserve each country’s sovereignty. This is important in the long-run, especially for conservation of national cultures, ideologies and national development strategies.

There maybe a good chance for Iran to negotiate early entry into the RCEP Agreement. It will definitely be a blow to US sanctions and on the other hand a tremendous opportunity for diversification of markets, production and consumption.

Again, congratulations. Being a member of the SCO is an extraordinary achievement. As, I always say the future is in the East. Best of luck to Iran, with new partners and new friends.

*

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)

Peter Koenig 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.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

This article was first published in September 2020.

We are told that the virus is everywhere – in the air, in our breath, on fomites, trapped in masks – yet public health authorities seem not to be in possession of any cultivable clinical samples of the offending pathogen.

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation instructed authorities not to look for a virus but to rely instead on a genome test, the RT-PCR, which is not specific for SARS-CoV-2 (1) (2).

A Freedom of Information request to Public Health England about cultivable clinical samples or direct evidence of viral isolation has no information and refers to the proxy RT-PCR test, quoting Eurosurveillance (3).

Eurosurveillance states:

“Virus detection by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) from respiratory samples is widely used to diagnose and monitor SARS-CoV-2 infection and, increasingly, to infer infectivity of an individual. However, RT-PCR does not distinguish between infectious and non-infectious virus. Propagating virus from clinical samples confirms the presence of infectious virus but is not widely available (and) requires biosafety level 3 facilities” (4).

The CDC admits that, “no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available”, and used a genetically modified human lung alveolar adenocarcinoma cell culture to, “mimic clinical specimen”(5).

It appears, therefore, that we have public health bodies without clinical samples, a test which is non-specific and does not distinguish between infectivity and non-infectivity, a requirement for biosafety level 3 facilities to even look for a virus, yet we are led to believe that it is up all our noses.

So, where is the virus?

*

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.

Notes

(1) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/10665-331501

(2) https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2420/rr-5

(3) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/679566/response/1625332/attach/ht…

(4) https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.32…

(5) https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

This interview with the Funeral Director, John O’Looney is a wake up call!

What he has witnessed since 2019 to present needs to be shared … all the deaths he is currently seeing have resulted from the ‘vaccine’ – the experimental unapproved gene therapy.

He tells it like it is … no government agency or politician, health authority or or media can cover up or fudge the TRUTH he is dealing with as a Funeral Director.

*

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 is a screenshot from the video

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“I have no doubt that the scientific and public health officials monitoring this crisis have the best intentions.” Erin O’Toole (1)

Canada’s Recovery Plan, (2) the Conservative’s go-to 2021 campaign doc, devotes ten pages to Covid. Under “Beating Covid-19 through vaccinations and testing” we learn:

“Canadians will likely need booster shots to protect against Covid-19. We need to be ready… Conservatives will implement a plan to ensure that Canada has faster and more consistent access to vaccines and that we have rapid access to booster shots to deal with future variants.”

Beating Covid through testing requires designated testing teams at all border-points and airports. Under the Conservatives, all prospective entrants to Canada, citizen or not, will submit to one or more Covid tests. O’Toole would: mass distribute home-testing kits; ramp-up testing inside elementary schools; and, fast-track testing technology approval.

The chapter, A Detailed Plan to Protect Canada from Future Pandemics, leads with:

“We know that we will face more Covid-19 variants in the years to come… Conservatives will ensure that our country is ready to face future pandemics…”

O’Toole’s mission: “bolster our infectious disease and pandemic infrastructure.”

O’Toole covets vaccine stockpiles. He wishes to overhaul federal infectious disease procedures with a view to improving early warning, and contract-tracing, capabilities. His Plan twice promises a national Covid/Vaccine data-base.

O’Toole commits to “making Canada one of the best jurisdictions globally for pharmaceutical research and development” by ending Liberal “hostility” toward the “global biomedical sector.”

Partnering with business will allow O’Toole to grow Canada’s biomaterials industries. Universities will also partner, thereby facilitating: “domestic vaccine (human) research testing.”

O’Toole wants: a) increased pharmaceutical R&D spending; b) increased production of vaccines, and other “infectious control products and biomaterials”; and c) increased PPE production. He shamelessly pitches tax-breaks, subsidies and tariffs for Big Pharma.

O’Toole schemed openly during several election-orientated Global, CBC and CTV news-pieces. (He protested no misquotes). Details in these articles and videos appear nowhere on the Party’s website.

O’Toole:

“I’ve been very clear – vaccines are the most critical tool in us fighting Covid-19. We encourage all Canadians to get vaccinated.” (3)

Prime Minister O’Toole would force Canada’s vaccination rate “beyond 90%” in two months. (4) He previously threatened “90%.” This upped the wager.

Fifteen to 20% of Canadians militantly oppose coercive vaccination. A third of this cohort will soon buckle, leaving a hardcore of at least 9% (3.3 million). By promising to press into 91-2% territory, O’Toole macho-signals, to key elites, a determination to combat hardcore resistance.

O’Toole proclaims ‘Beyond 90%’ achievable through: a) sick-leave for worker’s undergoing vaccination; b) free transportation too and from vaccination centres; and c) “appeals to patriotism.” Less overt are his primary stratagems; each designed to poke the bear.

O’Toole demands “accelerated authorization of vaccines for children under the age of 12” (5); i.e., vaccinating kids over the explicit protests of their parents.

O’Toole will implement a “national proof-of-vaccination system” (6); i.e., ensnaring the un-vaxxed with inter-provincial travel restrictions.

Early auditioning landed O’Toole the role of village scold. Erin breaks a sweat gossiping about the scandalous disregard of social distancing protocols at Justin’s soirees. Likewise, he denounces Covid Resistance protests at hospitals as “completely unacceptable.” (7)

A glimpse at O’Toole’s authoritarian planet came during an attack on Bernier, wherein Erin opined:

“Let me be frank. The single worst thing I, or any other leader, could do is turn a question of public health into one of political division.” (8)

Doubting public health officials… – worst crime imaginable?

*

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.

Notes

1. Canada election: O’Toole unveils plan to combat COVID-19, increase vaccinations (msn.com)

2. e4cd8c0115c3ea0.pdf (conservative.ca)

3. O’Toole says all Canadians should get a shot as Conservative MP calls mandatory vaccination ‘tyrannical’ | CBC News

4. O’Toole vows to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates above 90%, pressed for clarity on gun position (msn.com)

5. O’Toole vows to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates above 90%, pressed for clarity on gun position (msn.com)

6. O’Toole promises to implement national proof of COVID-19 vaccination system – National | Globalnews.ca

7. COVID-19: O’Toole calls planned demonstrations at hospitals ‘completely unacceptable’ (yahoo.com)

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko and his team has successfully treated 6,000 patients and trained hundreds of physicians. He has attended to public officials from the US, Israel and Brazil. 

Dr. Zelenko’s experience has given him a unique perspective in approaching COVID-19, basically to keep people out of hospitals.

Watch him share his experience below.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

There seems to be a glaring illogic to official arguments about the need to vaccinate British children against Covid that no one in the corporate media wishes to highlight.

Days ago the British government’s experts on vaccinations, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, withstood strong political pressure and decided not to recommend vaccinating children aged between 12 and 15. That was because the JCVI concluded that vaccination could not be justified in the case of children on health grounds.

The implication was that the known health risks associated with vaccination for children – primarily from heart inflammation – outweighed the health benefits. The JCVI also indicated that there might be unknown, longer-term health risks too, given the lack of follow-up among young people and children who have already been vaccinated.

But while the JCVI defied the government, they did not entirely ignore the political demands of them. They offered the government’s four chief medical officers a get-out clause that could be exploited to rationalise the approval of child vaccinations: they conceded that vaccinations might offer other, non-health benefits.

Research suggesting that boys are four times more likely to get serious side-effects from the vaccine than from Covid itself throws another wrench in the highly politicised 'follow the science' narrative, as I explain in my recent post https://t.co/ykAvaZhTCY

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 12, 2021

Utilitarian arguments 

Predictably, this utilitarian justification for child vaccinations has been seized on by the British government. Here is the Guardian uncritically regurgitating the official position:

“There have also been concerns about the indirect effects of the virus on children. The biggest has been the disruption to schools, which had a severe impact on their mental and physical health, as well as their education.

“That, essentially, is why the four CMOs have said children aged between 12 and 15 should be eligible for the jab.

“They believe that being vaccinated will reduce the risk of disruption to school and extracurricular activities and the effect of this on their mental health and wellbeing.”

Let’s unpack that argument. 

Covid poses no serious threat to the overwhelming majority of children, the JCVI and the chief medical officers are agreed. (Those few children who are at risk can be vaccinated under existing rules.)

But, according to the government, Covid has inflicted physical, mental and educational suffering on children because classrooms had to be shut for prolonged periods to protect vulnerable adults in the period before the adult population could be vaccinated.

Now most adults, and almost all vulnerable adults, are vaccinated against Covid, offering them a significant degree of protection.

But still children need to be injected with a vaccine that may, on balance, do more harm to their health than good.

If this is the official argument, we should all be asking: Why?

Two scenarios 

There are two potential scenarios for assessing this argument.

The first:

The vaccine works against transmission and severe illness in adults. Schools therefore no longer need to be shut down to protect the adult population. Adults are now largely safe – unless they have decided not to get vaccinated. And that, in turn, means that “indirect” harm to children’s mental and physical wellbeing caused by school closures should no longer be a consideration.

If this is the case, then there are no grounds – either health ones or indirect, non-health ones – to justify vaccinating children.

The second:

The vaccine doesn’t stop transmission and severe illness, but it reduces some transmission and mitigates the worst effects of Covid. This is what the evidence increasingly suggests.

If this is the case, then vaccinating children will not only fail to stop a proportion of them catching and transmitting Covid but it will also fail in its stated purpose: preventing the future closure of schools and the associated, indirect harms to children.

Worse, at the same time vaccination may increase children’s risk of damage to their health from the vaccine itself, as the JCVI’s original conclusion implies.

Speculative benefits 

Neither scenario offers persuasive medical, or even non-medical, grounds for vaccinating children. A speculative, marginal benefit to the adult population is being prioritised over the rights of children to enjoy bodily autonomy and to avoid being subjected to medical experiments that may have either short-term or long-term effects on their health.

Keep this quote. It'll soon be inconvenient and get forgotten. JCVI prof says: 'The MHRA actually allow you to use a vaccine, and we say, well, do we need to? And the answer is no, not for healthy 12 to 15-year-olds, on health grounds' https://t.co/2kgdEwRllu pic.twitter.com/VCGzJ7SdNN

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 6, 2021

Just to be clear, as the “follow the science” crowd prepare yet again to be outraged, these are not my arguments. They are implicit in the official reasoning of the experts assessing whether to vaccinate children. They have been ignored on political grounds, because the government would prefer to look like it is actively getting us “back to normal”, and because it has chosen to put all its eggs in the easy (and profitable) vaccine basket.

If vaccines are all that is needed to solve the pandemic, then there is no need to look at other things, such as the gradual dismantling of the National Health Service by successive governments, very much including the current one; our over-consumption economies; nutrient-poor diets promoted by the farming and food industries; and much else besides.

Unadulterated racism 

There are, in fact, much more obvious, unequivocal reasons to oppose vaccinating children – aside from the matter that vaccination subordinates children’s health to the adult population’s wellbeing on the flimsiest of pretexts.

First, vaccination doses wasted on British children could be put to far better use vaccinating vulnerable populations in the Global South. There are good self-interested reasons for us to back this position, especially given the fact that the fight is against a global pandemic in a modern world that is highly interconnected.

But more altruistic – and ethical – concerns should also be at the forefront of discussions too. Our lives aren’t more important than those of Africans or Asians. To think otherwise – to imagine that we deserve a third or fourth booster shot or need to vaccinate children to reduce the risk of Covid deaths in the west to near-zero – is pure, unadulterated racism.

And second, a growing body of medical reseach indicates that natural immunity confers stronger, longer-lasting protection against Covid.

Given that the virus poses little medical threat to children, the evidence so far suggests they would be better off catching Covid, as apparently half of them already have.

That is both because it serves their own interests by developing in them better immunity against future, nastier variants; and because it serves the interests of the adults around them – assuming (and admittedly it’s a big assumption) that the goal here is not to have adults dependent on endless booster shots to prevent waning immunity and enrich Pfizer.

Worst of both worlds 

By contrast, the approach the British government is pursuing – and most of the corporate media is cheerleading – is the worst of both worlds.

British officials want to treat Covid as a continuing menace to public health, one that apparently can never be eradicated. A state of permanent emergency means the government can accrue to itself ever increasing powers, including for surveillance, on the pretext that we are in an endless war against the virus.

But at the same time the government’s implicit “zero tolerance” approach to Covid – in this case, a futile ambition to prevent any hospitalisations or deaths from the virus in the UK – means that the interests of British children, and populations in foreign countries we helped to impoverish through our colonial history, can be sacrificed for the good of adults in rich western countries.

Covid offers ideal conditions to set us at each other's throats. First it was over masks and lockdowns. Then over vaccination status and passports. Now it's children against parents. My latest explains why we're on a slippery slope https://t.co/VzH5w96XYV

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) September 6, 2021

The combined effect of these two approaches is to foster a political climate in which western governments and the corporate media are better placed to replicate the colonial policy priorities they have traditionally pursued abroad but this time apply them to the home front.

The supposed war against the virus – a war that children apparently must be recruited to fight on our behalf – rather neatly echoes the earlier, now discredited and unravelling “war on terror”. 

Both can be presented as threats to our civilisation. Both require the state to redirect vast resources to corporate elites (the “defence” industries and now Big Pharma). Both have led to widespread fear among the populace, making it more compliant. Both require a permanent state of emergency and the sacrifice of our liberties. Both have been promoted in terms of a bogus humanitarianism. And neither war can be won.

Dog eat dog 

Recognising these parallels is not the same as denial, though the government and media have every interest to cultivate this as an assumption. There were and are terrorists, even if the term readily gets mangled to serve political agendas. And there is a dangerous virus that vulnerable populations need protection from.

But just as the “terror” threat arose in response to – and to mask – our arrogant, colonial control over, and plundering of, other people’s resources, so this pandemic threat appears to have arisen, in large part, from our arrogant invasion of every last habitat on the planet, and our ever less healthy, consumption-driven lifestyles.

At the beginning of the pandemic, I wrote an article that went viral called “A lesson coronavirus is about to teach the world“. In it, I argued that our capitalist societies, with their dog-eat-dog ideologies, were the least suited to deal with a health crisis that required solidarity, both local and global.

My latest: The response of leaders like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson to the coronavirus crisis has shed a troubling light on the twisted priorities long cultivated in our societies https://t.co/YNDYawpBbY

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 17, 2020

I noted that Donald Tump, then the US president, was trying to secure an early, exclusive deal for a “silver bullet” – a vaccine – whose first doses he planned to reserve for Americans as a vote-winner at home and then use as leverage over other states to reward those who complied with his, or possibly US, interests. The planet could be divided into friends and foes – those who received the vaccine and those who were denied it.

It was a typically Trumpian vanity project that he did not realise. But in many ways, it has come to pass in a different fashion and in ways that have the potential to be more dangerous than I could foresee.

Divide and rule 

The vaccine has indeed been sold as a silver bullet, a panacea that lifts from our shoulders not just the burden of lockdowns and masks but the need for any reflection on what “normal life” means and whether we should want to return to it.

And just as Trump wanted to use vaccine distribution as a tool of divide-and-rule, the vaccination process itself has come to serve a similar end. With the quick roll-out of vaccines, our societies have almost immediately divided between those who demand vaccine passports and mandates as the price for inclusion and those who demand the protection of basic liberties and cultivation of social solidarity without conditions.

In popular discourse, of course, this is being spun as a fight between responsible vaxxers and irresponsible anti-vaxxers. That is more divide-and-rule nonsense. Those in favour of vaccination, and those who have been vaccinated, can be just as concerned about the direction we are heading in as the “anti-vaxxers”.

Fear has driven our division: between those who primarily fear the virus and those who primarily fear western elites whose authoritarian instincts are coming to the fore as they confront imminent economic and environmental crises they have no answers for.

Increasingly, where we stand on issues surrounding the pandemic has little to do with “the science” and relates chiefly to where each of us stands on that spectrum of fear.

Hoarding impulse 

The vaccination of children highlights this most especially, which is why I have chosen to focus on it. We want children vaccinated not because the research suggests they need it or society benefits from it but because knowing they are vaccinated will still our fear of the virus a little more.

Similarly, we want foreigners denied the vaccine – and that is the choice we make when we prioritise our children being vaccinated and demand booster shots for ourselves – because that too will allay our fears.

We hoard the vaccinations, just as we once did toilet paper. We try to fortify our borders against the virus, just as we do against “immigrants”, even though the rational part of our brain knows that the virus will lap up on our shores, in new variants, unless poorer nations are in a position to vaccinate their populations too.

Our fears, the politicians’ power complexes and the corporations’ profit motives combine to fuel this madness. And in the process we intensify the dog-eat-dog ideology we call western civilisation.

We turn on each other, we prioritise ourselves over the foreigner, we set parent against child, we pit the vaccinated against the unvaccinated – all in the name of a bogus humanitarianism and solidarity.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/ 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

During the 1900’s, Germany was one of the main European powers that controlled several colonies in Africa turning the people into test subjects.  Germany’s colonies included ‘German South-West Africa’ which is Namibia today, there was also Kamerun, which is now called Cameroon, there was also ‘German East Africa’ which is now made up of Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi.  Africans can recall what happened during those times of German colonization especially with the  Herero women of Namibia. 

Historically, German doctors experimented on the Herero women with “sterilization tests” in order to ban mixed-race marriages.  Fast forward to 1996, Big Pharma giant Pfizer conducted a clinical trial with a drug called trovafloxacin (Trovan) at the height of meningococcal meningitis outbreak in Kano, Nigeria.  The chosen guinea pigs were 200 Nigerian children, 100 of the children were given Trovan while the remaining 100 children received what they considered the “gold-standard anti-meningitis treatment, ceftriaxone” which is described as  a “cephalosporin antibiotic.”  What was cynical about the clinical trials is that Pfizer gave a reduced dose of ceftriaxone so that their drug Trovan, would prove to be more effective.  In 2007, the BBC published an article ‘Nigeria sues drugs giant Pfizer’ said that “Nigeria has filed charges against the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, accusing it of carrying out improper trials for an anti-meningitis drug.”  However, in a corporate fascist manner, Pfizer denied “any wrongdoing”:

The government is seeking $7bn (£3.5bn) in damages for the families of children who allegedly died or suffered side-effects after being given Trovan. Kano state government has filed separate charges against Pfizer.  The firm denies any wrongdoing, saying the trials were conducted according to Nigerian and international law

The results of the 200 Nigerian children were not good, in fact Kano officials said that the trials resulted in more than 50 deaths with others suffered from severe side effects including physical deformities:

Pfizer – the world’s largest pharmaceutical company – tested the experimental antibiotic Trovan in Kano during an outbreak of meningitis which had affected thousands in 1996. Some 200 children were tested. Pfizer say 11 of them died of meningitis, but Kano officials say about 50 died whilst others developed mental and physical deformities.

The government says the deaths and deformities were caused by Trovan and that the children were injected with the drug without approval from Nigerian regulatory agencies. The government says the deaths and deformities were caused by Trovan and that the children were injected with the drug without approval from Nigerian regulatory agencies

Byrant Haskins, a Pfizer spokesperson at the time said “These allegations against Pfizer, which are not new, are highly inflammatory and not based on all the facts,” he told the Reuters news agency.  Haskins also said the trials “had helped save lives.”  The BBC had mentioned one fact that is surely undeniable:

The BBC’s Alex Last in Nigeria says the case has added to suspicion of western medicine and drug trials in northern Nigeria and that has had a damaging effect on attempts to get the whole population to accept polio immunisation

In an interesting note on the whole clinical trial ordeal, Pfizer had said that they received “verbal consent” from the parents but apparently Pfizer “neglected to informed consent from the parents of the patients, who were, anyway, too stressed to make rational decisions” according to a 2020 Al-Jazeera report.

One last experiment on the African people I would like to mention happened in 1994 in Zimbabwe during the AZT human trials that was funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  AZT (Azidothymidine) was developed in the 1960’s as a way to fight cancer by allowing the compound in the drug to insert into the DNA of the cancer cell in order to stop it from reproducing itself but tests on mice proved that AZT had been a failure.   With that said, American physicians in collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe proceeded with the AZT trials basically without informed consent that included the testing 17,000 women who basically did not understand the dangers of the tests to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS.  The result was that more than 1000 babies had contracted HIV due to the experiments.

Many Africans remember the history of these events involving Big Pharma and that’s why they oppose vaccines and most drugs that come from the West.  I came across an interesting article published by a World Bank sponsored blog titled ‘What is driving COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa?’ that basically says that the African people are skeptical of the Covid-19 experimental injections for various reasons, “as African countries accelerate the deployment of COVID-19 (coronavirus) vaccines, the issue of vaccine hesitancy looms.”  The authors of this article Neia Prata Menezes, Muloongo Simuzingili, Zelalem Yilma Debebe, Fedja Pivodic and Ernest Massiah say that vaccine hesitancy is due to the shortage of Covid-19 experimental injections but at the same time they also admit that it’s not the only explanation of low vaccination rate on the continent, “In Africa, hesitancy must be viewed in the context of significant vaccine shortage; hesitancy does not explain fully the low vaccination rates in Africa. The slow vaccine rollout on the continent is  due to supply constraints, structural issues, and logistical barriers.”  However the safety of the experimental injections with its side effects are the main drivers of vaccine hesitancy in several countries according to the authors:

In a recent five-country Afrobarometer survey  six out of 10 citizens in Benin, Liberia, Niger, Senegal and Togo were hesitant to get vaccinated.  In Africa, there are multiple drivers of vaccine hesitancy. Concerns about safety, side effects, and effectiveness are widespread—and observed among health workers in Zimbabwe, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia.

The Africa CDC survey noted that respondents  viewed COVID-19 vaccines as less safe and effective than other vaccines, similar findings have been observed in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and South Africa

AstraZeneca’s experimental injections were also mentioned as it was suspended in European countries and South Africa’s data proved its ineffectiveness led to the rejection of the AstraZeneca vaccines by several African countries.  News that the Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine that was suspended in the US due to blood clots also created vaccine hesitancy throughout Africa.

What is not surprising about the World Bank article is that it blames vaccine hesitancy on “conspiracy theories” as a contributing factor:

Access to social media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. In the Africa CDC study, people with high levels of hesitancy were more likely to use social media and be exposed to disinformation. Half of those surveyed in South Africa believed the virus was linked to 5G technology. In another South African study, approximately a third of those who would refuse the vaccine trusted social media as a primary source of information. A small study in Addis Ababa showed that hesitancy was 3.6 times higher among those who received their information from social media compared to those who relied on television and radio

Many also do not trust their corrupted governments officials since historically they are susceptible to bribes from western governments and multinational corporations:

Trust in one’s government influences vaccination uptake. In West Africa, Afrobarometer reported high levels of mistrust in governments’ ability to provide a safe vaccine. Those who did not trust their government were five to 10 times less likely to want to be vaccinated. In Ghana, 40% of those who are unwilling to be vaccinated cited mistrust of the government while in South Africa, those who believed the president was doing a good job were more likely to be vaccinated

Many in Africa especially in Niger and Liberia believe that praying to God was more effective than the experimental injections, “Religious beliefs also inform vaccine acceptance. Close to 90% of individuals surveyed in Niger and Liberia said that prayer was more effective than the vaccine.”  A recent poll showed “six African countries showed religious beliefs as key determinants of hesitancy.”  And who can blame them?  The African people understand Western vaccines are extremely dangerous, so for them, praying to God is a lot more safer than taking an experimental injection. 

The authors also pointed out that many believe that they are being used as guinea pigs for what the authors call “Western medical practices” and are targeted for depopulation:     

Mistrust of vaccines developed in Western countries is not new in Africa. It is rooted in the history of unethical Western medical practices on the continent where early efforts to address disease diminished trust in Western medicine and led to underutilization of health services.

Approximately 43% of those surveyed by the Africa CDC 15-country study believed that Africans were being used as guinea pigs in vaccine trials. Similar findings were noted in DRC; and, a 2021 survey in Addis Ababa  hesitancy was associated with the belief that the vaccine was a biological weapon from developed countries to control population growth

So what is their solution to convince Africans that Western vaccines are safe and effective? You guessed it! They believe that more propaganda is needed to convince the African people to take the experimental injections:

As vaccine supply increases and communication campaigns expand, changes in hesitancy are being observed. This needs to be constantly monitored to develop consistent and effective communication strategies that address the challenges posed by new variants and more divergent views on COVID-19 and vaccines continue to flood social media

One other factor that we must add that was not mentioned in the World Bank article is the use of alternative drugs such as Ivermectin and HCQ as pointed out by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in ‘The Triumph of Evil? The Suppression of Ivermectin and HCQ in Support of the COVID Vaccination Catastrophe’ who said

“now evidence arises from  Japanese researchers that in countries in Africa where Onchocerciasis or River Blindness is endemic, Ivermectin is distributed to the population to prevent or cure infection.  In these countries, there is practically no Covid.” 

Source: Johns Hopkins CSSE via SCN

The African people are one of the most awaken people on earth when it comes to any form of medicine that basically comes from the west.

They understand what are dangers behind Big Pharma’s long-term agenda because that continent has experienced life through centuries of European colonization.

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

This article was first posted on Global Research on March 21, 2021

The following list was created by Israeli Rabbi Chananya Weissman.

1. It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take a medical treatment for an illness I do not have.

2. The drug companies, politicians, medical establishment, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing a medical treatment. Because they are being deceitful, I do not trust them, and want nothing to do with their medical treatment.

3. The presumed benefits of this medical treatment are minimal and would not last long in any case. The establishment acknowledges this, and is already talking about additional shots and ever-increasing numbers of new “vaccines” that would be required on a regular basis. I refuse to turn myself into a chronic patient who receives injections of new pharmaceutical products on a regular basis simply to reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus that these injections do not even prevent.

4. I can reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus by strengthening my immune system naturally. In the event I catch a virus, there are vitamins and well-established drugs that have had wonderful results in warding off the illness, without the risks and unknowns of this medical treatment.

5. The establishment insists that this medical treatment is safe. They cannot possibly know this because the long-term effects are entirely unknown, and will not be known for many years. They may speculate that it is safe, but it is disingenuous for them to make such a claim that cannot possibly be known. Because they are being disingenuous, I do not trust them, and I want no part of their treatment.

6. The drug companies have zero liability if anything goes wrong, and cannot be sued. Same for the politicians who are pushing this treatment. I will not inject myself with a new, experimental medical device when the people behind it accept no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong. I will not risk my health and my life when they refuse to risk anything.

7. Israel’s Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Israeli people are the world’s laboratory for this experimental treatment. I am not interested in being a guinea pig or donating my body to science.

8. Israel agreed to share medical data of its citizens with a foreign drug company as a fundamental part of their agreement to receive this treatment.I never consented for my personal medical data to be shared with any such entity, nor was I even asked. I will not contribute to this sleazy enterprise.

9. The executives and board members at Pfizer are on record that they have not taken their own treatment, despite all the fanfare and assurances. They are claiming that they would consider it unfair to “cut the line”. This is a preposterous excuse, and it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to even say such a thing. Such a “line” is a figment of their own imagination; if they hogged a couple of injections for themselves no one would cry foul. In addition, billionaires with private jets and private islands are not known for waiting in line until hundreds of millions of peasants all over the world go first to receive anything these billionaires want for themselves.

10. The establishment media have accepted this preposterous excuse without question or concern. Moreover, they laud Pfizer’s executives for their supposed self-sacrifice in not taking their own experimental treatment until we go first. Since they consider us such fools, I do not trust them, and do not want their new treatment. They can have my place in line. I’ll go to the very back of the line.

11. Three facts that must be put together:

• Bill Gates is touting these vaccines as essential to the survival of the human race.
• Bill Gates believes the world has too many people and needs to be “depopulated”.
• Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, has also not been injected. No rush.

Uh, no. I’ll pass on any medical treatments he wants me to take.

12. The establishment has been entirely one-sided in celebrating this treatment.The politicians and media are urging people to take it as both a moral and civic duty. The benefits of the treatment are being greatly exaggerated, the risks are being ignored, and the unknowns are being brushed aside. Because they are being deceitful and manipulative, I will not gamble my personal wellbeing on their integrity.

13. There is an intense propaganda campaign for people to take this treatment.Politicians and celebrities are taking selfies of themselves getting injected (perhaps in some cases pretending to get injected), the media is hyping this as the coolest, smartest, most happy and fun thing to do. It is the most widespread marketing campaign in history. This is not at all appropriate for any medical treatment, let alone a brand new one, and it makes me recoil.

14. The masses are following in tow, posting pictures of themselves getting injected with a drug, feeding the mass peer pressure to do the same. There is something very alarming and sick about this, and I want no part of it. I never took drugs just because “everyone’s doing it” and it’s cool. I’m certainly not going to start now.

15. Those who raise concerns about this medical treatment are being bullied, slandered, mocked, censored, ostracized, threatened, and fired from their jobs. This includes medical professionals who have science-based concerns about the drug and caregivers who have witnessed people under their charge suffering horrible reactions and death shortly after being injected. When the establishment is purging good people who risk everything simply to raise concerns about a new medical treatment — even if they don’t outright oppose it — I will trust these brave people over the establishment every time. I cannot think of a single similar case in history when truth and morality turned out to be on the side of the establishment.

16. This is the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race.

17. It is purposely not being portrayed as the greatest medical experiment in the history of the human race, and the fact that it is a medical experiment at all is being severely downplayed.

18. Were they up front with the masses, very few would agree to participate in such an experiment. Manipulating the masses to participate in a medical experiment under false pretenses violates the foundations of medical ethics and democratic law. I will not allow unethical people who engage in such conduct to inject me with anything.

19. The medical establishment is not informing people about any of this. They have become marketing agents for an experimental drug, serving huge companies and politicians who have made deals with them. This is a direct conflict with their mandate to concern themselves exclusively with the wellbeing of the people under their care. Since the medical establishment has become corrupted, and has become nothing more than a corporate and political tool, I do not trust the experimental drug they want so badly to inject me with.

20. We are being pressured in various ways to get injected, which violates medical ethics and the foundations of democratic society. The best way to get me not to do something is to pressure me to do it.

21. The government has sealed their protocol related to the virus and treatments for THIRTY YEARS. This is information that the public has a right to know, and the government has a responsibility to share. What are they covering up? Do they really expect me to believe that everything is kosher about all this, and that they are concerned first and foremost with my health? The last time they did this was with the Yemenite Children Affair. If you’re not familiar with it, look it up. Now they’re pulling the same shtick. They didn’t fool me the first time, and they’re definitely not fooling me now.

22. The government can share our personal medical data with foreign corporations, but they won’t share their own protocol on the matter with us? I’m out.

23. The establishment has recruited doctors, rabbis, the media, and the masses to harangue people who don’t want to get injected with a new drug. We are being called the worst sort of names. We are being told that we believe in crazy conspiracies, that we are against science, that we are selfish, that we are murderers, that we don’t care about the elderly, that it’s our fault that the government continues to impose draconian restrictions on the public. It’s all because we don’t want to get injected with an experimental treatment, no questions asked. We are even being told that we have a religious obligation to do this, and that we are grave sinners if we do not. They say that if we do not agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever and be ostracized from public life.

This is horrific, disgusting, a perversion of common sense, morality, and the Torah. It makes me recoil, and only further cements my distrust of these people and my opposition to taking their experimental drug. How dare they?

24. I know of many people who got injected, but none of them studied the science in depth, carefully weighed the potential benefits against the risks, compared this option to other alternatives, was truly informed, and decided this medical treatment was the best option for them. On the contrary, they got injected because of the hype, the propaganda, the pressure, the fear, blind trust in what “the majority of experts” supposedly believed (assuming THEY all studied everything in depth and were completely objective, which is highly dubious), blind trust in what certain influential rabbis urged them to do (ditto the above), or hysterical fear that the only option was getting injected or getting seriously ill from the virus. When I see mass hysteria and cult-like behavior surrounding a medical treatment, I will be extremely suspicious and avoid it.

25. The drug companies have a long and glorious history of causing mass carnage with wonder drugs they thrust on unsuspecting populations, even after serious problems had already become known. Instead of pressing the pause button and halting the marketing of these drugs until these issues could be properly investigated, the drug companies did everything in their power to suppress the information and keep pushing their products. When companies and people have demonstrated such gross lack of concern for human life, I will not trust them when they hype a new wonder drug. This isn’t our first rodeo.

26. Indeed, the horror stories are already coming in at warp speed, but the politicians are not the least bit concerned, the medical establishment is brushing them aside as unrelated or negligible, the media is ignoring it, the drug companies are steaming ahead at full speed, and those who raise a red flag continue to be bullied, censored, and punished. Clearly my life and my wellbeing are not their primary concern. I will not be their next guinea pig in their laboratory. I will not risk being the next “coincidence”.

27. Although many people have died shortly after getting injected — including perfectly healthy young people — we are not allowed to imply that the injection had anything to do with it. Somehow this is anti-science and will cause more people to die. I believe that denying any possible link, abusing people who speculate that there might be a link, and demonstrating not the slightest curiosity to even explore if there might be a link is what is anti-science and could very well cause more people to die. These same people believe I am obligated to get injected as well. No freaking thanks.

28. I am repulsed by the religious, cult-like worship of a pharmaceutical product, and will not participate in this ritual.

29. My “healthcare” provider keeps badgering me to get injected, yet they have provided me no information on this treatment or any possible alternatives.Everything I know I learned from others outside the establishment. Informed consent has become conformed consent. I decline.

30. I see all the lies, corruption, propaganda, manipulation, censorship, bullying, violation of medical ethics, lack of integrity in the scientific process, suppression of inconvenient adverse reactions, dismissal of legitimate concerns, hysteria, cult-like behavior, ignorance, closed-mindedness, fear, medical and political tyranny, concealment of protocols, lack of true concern for human life, lack of respect for basic human rights and freedoms, perversion of the Torah and common sense, demonization of good people, the greatest medical experiment of all time being conducted by greedy, untrustworthy, godless people, the lack of liability for those who demand I risk everything… I see all this and I have decided they can all have my place in line. I will put my trust in God. I will use the mind He blessed me with and trust my natural instincts.

Which leads to the final reason which sums up why I will not get “vaccinated.”

31. The Whole thing Stinks.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Gates of Vienna

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“When missionaries came to Africa, we had the land, they had the bible. We closed our eyes to pray. When we opened them, we had the bible and they had the land.” (Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu(1))

The usual portrayal of Africa is of a continent whose people are backwards, unable to move beyond a series of ethnic rivalries and ruled by war-mongering dictators.

The mainstream media rarely ask “What role did rich nations play in getting those leaders into power and keeping them there?” Analysis of almost any African country highlights the worst aspects of the international system, whether it is providing weapons to help dictators get into power, or economic conditions, imposed by the IMF, which make it difficult for well-meaning leaders to reduce poverty. It provides excellent examples of how the combination of war and economic exploitation work together to allow rich nations to achieve their aims.(2) At the same time this causes devastating consequences for people in African countries, with violence, rape, extreme poverty and the spread of diseases all feeding on each other.(3) Throughout Africa, the main players are the US, Britain and France, with China gradually increasing its influence.

The Richest Continent On Earth 

The importance of Africa’s natural resources was recognised hundreds of years ago. Rich countries have pursued them ever since. There are many valuable minerals that powerful people are prepared to fight wars over. People in war zones often refer to the term, war GODs, meaning Gold, Oil and Diamonds. Wars have occurred repeatedly in Angola, the Congo, Ghana and Sierra Leone as there is so much profit to be made from controlling the diamond trade.(4) Cobalt and Niobium are used to make equipment that has to work in extreme conditions and are therefore used in space, weaponry, nuclear reactors, submarines, chemical refineries, blast furnaces and oil tankers.

Coltan is used in mobile phones, computers and video games and is therefore in great demand by corporations from advanced nations. Central Africa holds 80% of the world’s coltan reserves and 60% of the world’s cobalt.(5) It is estimated that the resources of a single country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), are worth $24 trillion, but little of this wealth is used to benefit the poor. For overseas companies, dictators and warlords, it can be profitable to exploit these resources during both peacetime and war. A proper government expects to be properly paid. In war zones, corrupt governments who assist big corporations can get away, literally, with murder. Rich countries support repressive regimes so their corporations can continue extracting these resources.

Colonial Exploitation 

Throughout history we find evidence that white people have regarded black people as inferior. Examples of these attitudes can be found in the speeches of many famous people. Field Marshall Montgomery once said of Africa’s resources “The African is a complete savage, incapable of developing these resources himself”.(6) This attitude has been used by US, British and European politicians to justify appalling treatment of many people in Africa, whilst stealing their resources.

Until just after the second world war, Africa was divided up into European colonies, mostly British and French. Many people in Britain have been brainwashed into believing that colonialism was mostly about rich countries ‘taking civilization to the natives’. The evidence strongly contradicts this. It was mostly about rich countries plundering resources for their own benefit. Large quantities of crops and raw materials were brought to Britain from its colonies at prices well below the going rate.(7) This involved huge amounts of violence against the local populations, including widespread murder, torture and rape.

As a by-product of the colonial system, some countries gained a railway system, but this was primarily to transport resources to coastal ports, and to move soldiers inland quickly. Some of the population received education, and some countries gained a civil service, but this was just a small minority who effectively administered the system on behalf of their British rulers. The British governor in Sudan once said “We have been able to limit education to the sons of chiefs and native administrative personnel.”(8) Data for Tanzania suggests that when Tanzania gained independence in 1961, only one person in six could read.(9) The country only had 2 engineers and 12 doctors. After three decades of development after independence, almost everyone could read and the country had trained thousands of doctors, engineers and teachers. Most other African countries had been similarly under-developed by their European colonisers.(10)

Neo-colonialism: The Myth Of Independence 

After World War 2 it became clear that European countries were no longer able to continue controlling their colonies. Britain and France did not give up their empires easily. There was widespread violence as people fought for their independence. Winston Churchill is remembered for being a successful war leader but he was also a ‘stubborn imperialist’. Colonies were eventually granted independence, but often on terms that were acceptable to Britain, France and other colonial powers. The term independence is an excellent example of government propaganda. A 1947 report stated that we (the British government) must “convert formal into informal empire”. Colonialism did not really end. It merely continued in a different form, which has been called neo-colonialism. Rich nations tried to ensure that the new governments of their former colonies would continue to allow European companies to control mineral and other resources. A Foreign Office memo stated “Britain must ensure that any major obligations it gives up are taken over by its friends.”(11)

The political systems in these countries changed, but in some cases the economic systems did not. After independence, some countries continued with their colonial role of providing a small number of crops or minerals, and this still continues today. In Kenya there were, and still are, large numbers of highly profitable mines and estates. In the 1950s British rulers in Kenya slaughtered, tortured and locked up hundreds of thousands of Kenyans who objected to the way they were exploited. Kenya eventually gained its independence in 1963 but before that, land was redistributed in a way that created a small class of landowners and a large class of people without land.(12) The landowners effectively became the new ruling class. They do not represent their poorest people and they have followed policies that benefitted themselves and foreign elites.

Some African leaders realised that these arrangements were too generous to colonial powers. They wanted to use the resources of their country for the benefit of their people. When they tried to re-negotiate contracts for oil, uranium or other minerals, they found themselves being overthrown by new leaders backed by rich countries. This system of rich countries trying to continue exploiting the region using corrupt leaders is the root cause of many of the problems in Africa. Of the 107 African leaders replaced between 1960 and 2003, two thirds were murdered, jailed or slung into exile. Up until 1979, 59 African leaders were toppled or assassinated. Only three retired peacefully and not one was voted out of office. No African ruler ever lost an election until 1982.(13) Rich nations have been active behind the scenes during many of these problems.

Uganda is a good example. Uganda gained its independence in 1961. The leader there, Milton Obote, had a mixed record, but in his early years he tried to create policies that were designed to help many of his people, including some of the poorest. Representatives at the British Foreign Office recognised that these policies were in the best interests of the people, but not in the interests of British corporations. The British Government objected to these policies, worried that it would set a precedent that other countries would follow. (Sudan nationalised many foreign-owned businesses shortly afterwards.) Idi Amin was a soldier in the Ugandan army and he took power in a violent coup. Despite knowing that he was a mass murderer, Britain supplied him with weapons, believing that his government would be better for British interests. It is estimated that over 300,000 people died during his rule. Britain only stopped supporting him when other countries realised how extreme he was, and his connection to Britain became an embarrassment.(14)

The French Still Exploit Africa Too 

These problems also occur in those countries that were French colonies. For nearly 40 years (until 2005), a brutal dictator called Eyadema Gnassingbe governed the small West African country of Togo(15) but was rarely mentioned in the Western press. You may not be familiar with him because, on the whole, he followed policies that were acceptable to French elites, and was therefore rarely criticised by leaders from rich countries. In another former French colony, the Ivory Coast, French companies own almost half the land and they still control the water and electricity, ports, railways, tobacco, rubber, construction, public works, telecoms, banking and insurance.(16)

The US are now the dominant power in Africa 

With the US’s rise to power after World War 2, it has gradually become the major player in Africa. In 1960, the CIA and the Belgian government helped to overthrow and then assassinate Patrice Lumumba, the leader of Zaire (now called the DRC), in order to replace him with the dictator, Mobutu.(17) He ruled until 1997, stealing at least $4 billion during that time. He was a murderous tyrant who tortured and executed political opponents. The US supplied him with large quantities of weapons, which he used to repress his own people. The US has exploited the region ever since by helping other repressive regimes in neighbouring countries.

Rwanda and Uganda have become the power-centre for US control of central Africa. They help the US exploit minerals in the region.(18) In the 1990s, the mainstream media talked about ‘the Rwandan genocide’ where millions of people were murdered. However, the media failed to explain that the violence was by both sides at different times, and that one group was backed by the US and Britain, and the other side was backed by France.(19) The US-backed leaders now control the region, and French is being replaced by English as the main language in some areas. The violence began years earlier and continues today. Rape, murder, child trafficking and sexual slavery are commonplace.(20) The huge death toll is mostly due to famine, malnutrition and disease.(21) America has supplied weapons to many of the groups involved in the fighting, and British weapons exports to the region are at record levels.(22)

Control By The IMF 

Some African countries are run by leaders who would genuinely like to help their poorest people, but they are heavily constrained by international organizations, such as the IMF and the WTO (Discussed in earlier posts.) In one analysis of IMF policies in Africa, the conclusion was that these policies had failed in 31 out of 34 countries. Millions of people are still dying from malnutrition and disease, having applied IMF policies for decades. Some of these countries, such as Nigeria, were once classed as middle-income countries, after making significant progress before the IMF became involved, but are now listed among the poorest countries in the world, with as much as 70% of the population living in poverty.(23) Foreign companies can make huge profits because there is little to stop them exploiting the locals, who have virtually no rights. The privatisation of healthcare and the corporate control of basic resources in Africa has been a disaster for many, particularly the poorest.

A country like Zambia provides a good example of how the current economic system virtually guarantees that some countries will remain in poverty. Zambia was doing quite well after independence. By the early 1970’s it had become one of Africa’s richest nations by following sensible policies, such as lots of government spending on healthcare and education. But almost all of its export earnings came from copper. The price of copper plummeted because there was too much being produced in other countries, such as Chile. At the same time, the price of imported oil rocketed. The prices of both oil and copper were manipulated by organisations from other countries, beyond the control of the Zambian government. It needed to borrow money from the IMF, but the IMF imposed the conditions outlined in earlier posts. Zambia has been extremely poor ever since.(24)

What about China? 

The mainstream media repeatedly carry stories about China exploiting Africa. However, the arrangements that China has with African countries have so far been much less exploitative than the arrangements that the US and the former European colonial powers have had.(25)

*

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 first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media.

Notes 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu

A similar quote is also attributed to Jomo Kenyatta.

2) Eric Ture Muhammad, ‘Africa: US Covert Action Exposed’, Corpwatch, April 25, 2001, at https://www.corpwatch.org/article/africa-us-covert-action-exposed 

Mark Curtis, Ambiguities of Power, p.212

3) Kathleen Kern, ‘The Human Cost Of Cheap Cell Phones’, in Steven Hiatt, A Game As Old As Empire, pp.93-112

4) ‘Central Africa: Diamonds Economy’, at http://www.africafocus.org/docs02/cent0206.php

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan

6) Mark Weber, ‘General Montgomery’s ‘Racist Masterplan’, The Journal for Historical Review, March/April 1999, at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n2p33_Weber.html 

7) Mark Curtis, Ambiguities of Power, p.16

8) ‘Darfur: Origins of a Catastrophe’, Feb 19, 2006, at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601898.html

9) The Heart of Africa: Interview with Julius Nyerere on Anti-Colonialism, New Internationalist Magazine, issue 309, Jan-Feb 1999, at www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/049.html

10) Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1972

11) Cohen-Caine Report, cited in Mark Curtis, Ambiguities of Power, p.16

12) Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, p.331

13) Global Issues, ‘Conflicts In Africa: Introduction’, at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Intro.asp

14) Mark Curtis, Unpeople, pp.245-261.

Obote did regain power some years later and proved to be not much better than Uganda’s other leaders.

15) Gnassingbe Eyadema, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnassingb%C3%A9_Eyad%C3%A9ma

16) Boubacar Boris Diop, ‘Ivory Coast: Colonial Adventure’, Le Monde Diplomatique, April 2005, at https://mondediplo.com/2005/04/10diop 

17) William Blum, Killing Hope, pp.156-162

The British intelligence agency, MI6, might also have been involved in the assassination of Lumumba, see Gordon Corera, ‘MI6 and the death of Patrice Lumumba’, BBC News, 2 April 2013, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22006446

18) ‘Report of The Panel of Experts On The Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of The Democratic Republic of The Congo’, at www.un.org/News/dh/latest/drcongo.htm

19) Michael Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty, pp.103-122

Wayne Madsen, Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, p.478

20) For detailed information on Central Africa see Keith Harmon Snow, at http://allthingspass.com/journalism.php?catid=14

Annie Kelly, ‘Sexual slavery rife in Democratic Republic of the Congo, says MSF’, The Guardian, 23 July 2014, at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jul/23/sexual-slavery-democratic-republic-congo-msf 

21) Zofsha Merchant, ‘Democratic republic of the Congo’, World Without Genocide, May 2020, at http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/congo 

22) ‘The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: A decade of Labour’s arms exports’, Saferworld, May 2007, at https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/264-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly—a-decade-of-labours-arms-exports 

Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, p.190 for information about Britain supplying weapons to both sides in the Congo.

AOAV, ‘UK arms exports to the DRC, Action on Armed Violence, 23 Nov 2018, at https://aoav.org.uk/2018/uk-arms-export-to-the-democratic-republic-of-congo/

23) Sam Bramlett, ‘Top 10 facts about poverty in Nigeria’, The Borgen Project, 25 Feb 2018, https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-poverty-in-nigeria/

24) Ngaire Woods, The Globalizers, pp.141-178

25) David Haroz, ‘China in Africa: Symbiosis or Exploitation’, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol.35, No.2, Summer 2011, at https://www.jstor.org/stable/45289533

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Is a bluetooth vaccine the next phase of weirdness associated with the rollout of the experimental COVID non-vaccines? Is bluetooth connectivity or compatability another effect of the vaccine? It’s been a string of bizarre events, and the high strangeness shows no signs of ending. First, we discovered the COVID vaxxed were affecting the unvaccinated just by being in their vicinity, probably via frequency transmission.

Next, we discovered that magnets stuck to the injection site of some of the COVID vaxxed, usually on the upper arm, with theories being that the COVID non-vaccine contained metallic nanoparticles or magnetic hydrogel. Now, we have early evidence of a brand new phenomenon (which still needs to be verified): a possible bluetooth vaccine. A recent video posted here on Brighteon shows a man who says he was vaccinated, explaining that he feels fine, except that everywhere he goes, devices in the vicinity try to connect … with him. Yes, I wrote correctly; devices try to connect with him.

Does the Injected COVID Non-Vaccine Try to Connect with Electronic Devices?

At this stage we are only asking questions and not making claims, however the video provides very interesting evidence. The man states that devices such as his car and his home computer are trying to connect with him via bluetooth. The man shows a notification on his phone of a bluetooth pairing request with a device called “AstraZeneca_ChAdOx1-S.” He even walks over to a TV hanging on the wall in the restaurant in which he’s sitting; when he gets close, the TV picks up the same AstraZeneca signal! AstraZeneca, as many know by now, is 1 of 4 Big Pharma companies (the others being Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson) who have brought a COVID non-vaccine to market. The man says:

“The only problem is that everywhere I go, everywhere I go, everything is trying to connect with me man, like Bluetooth connect to me. I get in the car, my car is trying to connect to me. I go home, my computer’s trying to connect. Like, my phone is trying to connect … the connectivity’s still there. I don’t know how to turn it off. Everywhere I get the same message.”

As you would expect, the mainstream fact-checkers (run by the same people who own the MSM) are coming out with their debunking articles. I’m not going to link to them to give them traffic, but you can easily look it up for yourself. Reuters writes in its ‘fact-checking’ article that “any mobile phone’s name could be edited to show “AstraZeneca_ChAdOx1-S” and request to pair with another device” implying that this whole thing is a hoax. Time will tell, however there’s no denying the overall pattern here.

Those who understand the background to this discovery – including Transhumanism and the Operation Coronavirus-nanotech connection – will perceive that this is another clue that the COVID non-vaccines are injecting some kind of biosensor into people, to begin the process of turning people into nodes on the Smart Grid.

Weird COVID Vax Phenomena is Actually Expected if You Understand the Transhumanism Agenda

From the viewpoint of the transhumanism agenda, none of these phenomena are actually strange at all. They are make complete sense and are in total alignment with the agenda to turn man into machine. In fact, this is only the beginning. It doesn’t take a genius to predict that there will be many more such phenomena that will surface in the weeks, months and years to come. It could be that someone will discover they suddenly have a synthetic or metallic body part inside of them they never knew existed. It could be that someone feels something moving under their skin. It could be that someone suddenly sees some kind of semi-alive fiber protruding out of their body (we already know there are weird fibers reminiscent of Morgellons in some COVID masks). It could be that people start to feel sensations, information or messages beamed at them to the biosensor receiver embedded in their bodies.

The New World Order (NWO) manipulators weren’t joking when they talked years ago of the Internet of Things (IoT) to work in conjunction with 5G; Bond-villain Klaus Schwab wasn’t joking when his World Economic Forum (WEF) talked recently of the Internet of Bodies (IoB). These Orwellian things are coming very rapidly into our reality, and we better pay attention. The Transhumanistic desire to turn all of us into Human 2.0 is happening right before our eyes and it’s high time to wake up to the agenda before it’s too late.

*

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.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and LBRY.

Sources

https://thefreedomarticles.com/not-a-vaccine-mrna-covid-vaccine-chemical-pathogen-device/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/bizarre-phenomenon-unvaccinated-getting-sick-being-around-the-covid-vaxxed/

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“That to me contextualizes what 9/11 was about, which was the institution of this new form of governance, the “Security State” which enabled all sorts of legislation and other things that gave more, centralized more power in the hands of the executive. Well now we’re seeing the complete take-over with regards to the Biosecurity State and literally the limitation and control of each individual and their participation in society.”

– James Corbett, from today’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW 

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The latest doc series from acclaimed film director Spike Lee might well have marked the most explosive upset of common and entrenched narratives around the September 11 attacks that we have seen in a long time – if ever.

NYC Epicenters 9/11 2021 1/2 is a 4 part documentary driven by interviews on camera which details New York’s resilience in the face of both the COVID crisis of the last year and a half, and of 9/11 from twenty years ago. The final half hour of the series presented honest interviews with 9/11 victims and with the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which put forward the claim that the World Trade Center towers did not collapse due to fires but were deliberately demolished. [1]

The film was pre-screened on August 22nd. The backlash by the press reporters was apparently so intense that even Spike Lee, an acclaimed film maker with an impressive record of courting controversy was forced to back down and re-edit this most extravagant production so that all references to AE911 truth and alternative views were to be scrapped from the final product!

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wrote their own take on the incident. Read it here.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth can boast of their accomplishments, their detailed work, and even putting together an expensive report by Dr Leroy Hulsey, now a Professor of Structural University of Structural Engineering Emeritus at Alaska Fairbanks, detailing his thorough and detailed paper on the inability of fires to bring down World Trade Center 7. And yet, in the mainstream media, their tireless efforts are described in less reverent descriptions such as the following:

“…Lee spends about 30 minutes on Gage and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, whose theories — like that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition — have been widely debunked.”[2]

Doesn’t exactly seem like independent researchers have the official storytellers backs against the wall, does it?

The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 was expected to see the biggest splash of not only solemn remembrance, but also an intense period of skeptical inquiry to reveal more details to a wider audience. But like every year so far, while gains are made among the general populace, successes in converting influential figures seem to be drying up.

This week, as an epilogue to last week’s show, the Global Research News Hour focuses again on the attacks of September 11, 2001 but with a focus on where this work as gotten us in the past, and what the prospects may be for life changing truths to wash up on the tide of an ocean of massive relays of facts, disinformation and the ever present creature of ‘conspiracy.’

In the first half hour, we speak with Roland Angle of AE911 Truth about his views surrounding the latest developments in the group’s efforts, and hopes for tidal wave of change one day bursting through the official story. In our second half hour, podcaster and 9/11 truther James Corbett pops by to mention the ‘good and bad’ of traditional 9/11 research, and it’s implications for COVID truth and other plots of the deep state seeping into all of our lives.

Roland Angle is the acting CEO and President of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. He served in the U.S. Army Special Forces, where he was trained in the use of explosives, and worked for 50 years as a licensed civil engineer in California. He has trained over 30 civil and structural engineers who give presentations around the country examining how the official engineering reports on the World Trade Center collapses are false.

James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 324)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW 

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with James Corbett, September 14 2021

Global Research: Your interest in 9/11 Truth started a few years ago after the event. Might I ask what specifically about this event left you convinced that the official story was flawed?

James Corbett: In order to understand the effect of discovering the fraud of the event, I have to go to return to the day itself and the events and the way they played out. And, like I imagine much of the public on that day, I rather unquestioningly accepted a lot of what was being told and what was being shown to us with growing sense of unease about the ways that 9/11 was clearly being used as a political bludgeon on the geopolitical stage in order to enact a war agenda that obviously started to rankle, but any suggestion that there was anything untoward with the events themselves seemed to me outlandish conspiracy theory.

Which is interesting, because of course I, growing up I had been willing to question all sorts of things, I did not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut, or those sorts of things. But in this particular event, perhaps because of the trauma of the events themselves, and the way they were presented, I found it difficult to go there.

It wasn’t until the fifth anniversary of 9/11 that I started to encounter information online that at least got me questioning. And I wish I could identify the single Silver Bullet as it were that got me there , but, I think it was more of a series of assertions that I was encountering in online documentaries about, for example, Osama Bin Laden meeting – suggestions that Osama Bin Laden was meeting with American intelligence in a hospital in Rawalpindi before 9/11 and things like this, which sounded outlandish to me, outlandish enough that I decided to look up, well is that true? And then I could determine for myself. Oh that was reported by French intelligence in the summer of 2001, or I heard about Operation Northwoods, a Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized plan to commit Terror attacks in the United States with casualties in order to blame that on Cuba. In order to justify an invasion of Cuba. I thought that sounded absolutely, staggeringly outlandish until I looked it up and saw the declassified documents for myself.

It was really that process of starting to not just encounter assertions of the information but actually looking up the documents underlying that information that got me interested in independent media generally. I mean, I wouldn’t be here doing this today if it wasn’t for that experience that I had around the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

GR: Myself as well. I know that the 9/11 Commission report, which contains a lot of information that’s in doubt, based on what you know about that report, what should the average listener think about as one of the most damning aspects of the official statement?

JC: I think, for me, one of the statements that has always stuck out for me was the statement on terrorist financing, where, ultimately, they conclude that, whatever the source is of the money trail here, it’s not that important. Something to that effect. I’ve quoted the actual line from the commission report, which I have sitting behind me, many times because it’s just so staggeringly, on its face ridiculous. The idea of a criminal investigation basically not interested in the money trail is a gigantic sign that they were not interested in investigating this at all. They have been many explorations of the staggering failures of the 9/11 Commission even from a mainstream perspective. You had Philip Sheen and then others who had written about the 911 Commission report and its many shortcomings.

One of the facts that I think spells it out most clearly is the fact that Philip Zelikow, who I think was appointed to be the executive director of the commission and essentially was running the commission, the chairmen were more figurehead positions. The executive director was the person who was dealing with it, hiring the commission staff, directing them, telling them what to write about, and then ultimately organizing the final report, not only did all of that work, but as Phillip Shenon reported in his I think 2008 book on the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow and one of his partners had, at the very beginning of the entire investigation, before the commission staff had even met a single time, written the entire complete outline of the final report of the 9/11 Commission. Not only including chapter titles, not only including headings, not only including subheadings, but sub-subheadings. Every single part of the 9/11 Commission final report, which is the official story of 9/11, was already baked into the cake before the 9/11 Commission even began meeting.

So that should tell you what you really need to know about the reliability of that report. There are many many many other points to be made besides there, but I think that gives you the flavour of just how reliable that investigation really was.

GR: A lot of the information came out of…torture was a way of getting information from …

JC: Another extremely important point. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but it was over four hundred of the footnotes, a full one third or one quarter of the footnotes in the 9/11 Commission report sources back to CIA extracted torture testimony from a few key eyewitnesses or key participants or at least alleged participants.

The testimony which would not be admitted in any court, and in fact that’s exactly what the continued, ongoing, never-ending circus trial that isn’t taking place in Guantanamo right now with regards to KSM, the so-called mastermind of 9/11 and his alleged co-conspirators, that’s the reason why in the 15, 16, 17 years they’ve been trying to bring that case, they still haven’t even been able to do that, even in a military kangaroo court, because the testimony was extracted via torture. And when that was discovered and the evidence of those torture testimony sessions, the waterboardings and others, the video evidence that existed, was ordered, ordered by a court judge to be preserved. The CIA went and erased it anyway. So, that again, gives you a flavour of where this actual final word on what happened on 9/11 really comes from.

GR: You know, the state of 9/11 Truth today, it seems to be almost completely absorbed in the explanation of the collapsing towers, particularly World Trade Center 7, but there used to be numerous other warnings outlined by Daniel Hopsicker, Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, and of course Michel Chossudovsky, but that stuff is treated like icing. The proof of controlled demolition of the towers is the cake, okay? Some of the older and wiser people in organizing have tended to reject that kind of argument base because it’s essentially speculative at its core. They prefer evidence about suppressed warnings and use of the CIA in deliberately telling the FBI about its activities, as the physical evidence arguments tend to dominate discussion, the financing, the numbers of activists. Some of the 9/11 Truth crowd have essentially thrown up their hands and walked away from the movement. But what are your thoughts about that, James? I mean, do you really think that stressing physical evidence from the site will get you anywhere in the courts?

JC: That’s actually been a particular bugbear of mine almost since the beginning of my exploration into the 9/11 Truth. I noticed, even at that time, in 2006, 2007, the very early days, whenever I would bring up the topic or even try to explore the topic with other people in real life, the thing they would say is, yeah, I saw that video on YouTube of the different explosions in the towers. Something along those lines. It would always boil down to the towers, at best, or maybe the Pentagon, or some other aspects of the explosive fireworks of that day. And I do not dismiss for one second the importance of investigating that. I think it is an important piece of what happened. But if we reduce 9/11 Truth down to the explosive events that happened on that day, and that’s all we talk about, that’s all we investigate, that’s all we look at, then for me it’s just a firework show. It’s just a pyrotechnic event. It has no meaning and no consequence. If we reduce 9/11 Truth down to that.

Because at base for me, 9/11 Truth is not about the day of Tuesday September 11th 2001 from 8:55 a.m. to 11 a.m. or whatever time frame we set there, no, this was a, at the very least , as one at 9/11 Commissioners himself admitted to, I believe, We Are Change LA, over a decade ago, this was the result of a 20-year conspiracy, which one would assume he’s talking about the origins of what eventually became al-Qaeda in the Soviet Afghan war and things along those lines. And if it was at least a 20-year conspiracy to bring those events about, it has since played out over 20 years in various permutations for various political agendas. And if we reduce all of that, all of that history, all of those extremely important points down to, it was some explosions that happened in a building, then we miss the absolute core of what 9/11 really signified, and the way that it’s being used, and then, we miss the actual importance of those events for the events that we are living through now with regards to the current crisis, when we’re looking at the COVID crisis. We cannot understand this unless we understand the greater paradigm that was operative, not just on the day of 9/11, but that was opened up by recourse to the events of 9/11.

GR: For sure. I definitely agree with you. I mean I think that the evidence is pretty strong about the controlled demolition. But I mean you only have a sliver of thought encapsulating this basically grand spectrum of activities.

In his 2006 essay lamenting the misdirection of 9/11 activism on the 5^th anniversary, Emmanuel Sferios states the following:

“The basic idea is to control both sides of the debate, and frame it in a way that makes the opposing side ineffective (not necessarily unbelievable). In the end it doesn’t matter whether even a majority of the people believe the US government was complicit in 9/11 (this is already the case). What matters is only that the perpetrators can never successfully be prosecuted. Thus they pollute the body of evidence with red herrings and false lines of inquiry.”

That bring us forward to 20 years after 9/11. Spike lee was forced to excise the meat of his production, which featured architects and engineers and 9/11 family members challenging the official story. Regardless, do you see any promise of a 9/11 breakthrough 20 years later or has success been driven even further into the mud of confusion?

JC: If the proof of the pudding is in the eating then I would just ask anyone out there in the crowd to taste the fruits of the 9/11 Truth tree! And what as it actually provided? Certainly no prosecutions! Certainly nothing tangential in that way. Not even really the derailing of any of the key political agendas that have played out. And now it is at the point where 9/11 is not even a touchstone that the politicians will bring out anymore in order to justify their agendas. That really does seem like yesterday’s news. So, the idea that 9/11 Truth is going to have some sort of breakthrough at this point seems highly unlikely.

I would never, ever dissuade anyone from pursuing whatever line of investigation and truth-seeking that they’re interested in. And certainly if you go into that go into it with the intention of making a difference and making a breakthrough. Yes. One hundred percent. But I am not holding my breath waiting for that.

I think, for me, the one real victory that I can identify with regards to the 9/11 Truth movement over the last twenty years was the introduction into public discourse of the idea of false flag terrorism. And I can attest to this from my own perspective being someone who, if you had confronted me with that idea twenty years ago, I would have responded as I think most of the public has responded, for the past couple of decades. “But why would the government attack itself?” It’s such a bizarre notion to the average person. They can’t even process what the political dynamics would be! Why would this happen? That doesn’t make any sense!

I have matured in my thinking over the past couple of decades. And I do think that the general public is now much more aware of the idea of false flag terrorism. Why it would be perpetrated, for what purpose and the idea that it could happen. Obviously, there’s still a large degree of debate and skepticism among the public that it does happen, or that it was implemented on 9/11 itself.

But even having that idea in the public consciousness is actually valuable because I’ve often likened it to a magic trick. If the crowd doesn’t know that there’s the rabbit up the sleeve, then it seems amazing when it happens and they just tend to believe it. But if you know that there is a rabbit up the sleeve, you’ll be looking for that rabbit. You will be less likely to believe when suddenly the rabbit appears from the hat. “Oh! How did that happen?” I can’t imagine.

Well, once you have that in your mind, you can at least start to process it. And I think that is an important step forward for truth-seeking generally and also for the derailing of the political agendas that are brought about through false flag events. The sort of wisening of the public to the idea that that exists is a significant victory.

GR: Most people, I think, might want to apply these lessons of 9/11 Truth to the pandemic or the “scamdemic” or the “COVID Conspiracy” whatever you want to call it. I mean, first of all there are similarities – I mean they’re both “conspiracy theories” right? They call you a conspiracy theory either way. A conspiracy theorist. Can I get you to talk about other similarities and talk about the differences between 9/11 Truth and COVID Truth?

JC: I think the similarities for anyone who is already familiar with 9/11 Truth, I think the similarities tended to jump out. And I have catalogued and talked about that quite specifically. I released something on the 19^th anniversary of 9/11 last year called “COVID 9/11: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity” where I attempted to detail those connections and the similarities and what makes these events comparable. And – not even comparable but actually part of a continuous fabric.

And within that I pointed – for example, I mean we can talk about it in generalities of Homeland Security and Biosecurity and that sort of thing – but we can look at very specific examples. Like the case of CLEAR which was a company that as Caryn Seidman-Becker who was an executive at CLEAR who was interviewed in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic on CNN talking about “Oh, what can we do now? Let’s start implementing all sorts of new security procedures,” the CEO of this company company called CLEAR was brought on to talk about their work with regards to COVID. And she started by saying CLEAR was born out of 9/11, and it was about a public-private partnership leveraging innovation to enhance Homeland Security and delight customers.

Imagine saying that with a straight face! Anyway, and then she says “and that was really the beginning of screening 1.0.” And just like screening was forever changed post-9/11, in a post-COVID environment you’re going to see screening and public safety significantly shift, and that’s when she goes into her spiel, touting CLEAR HEALTHPASS, which is now being adopted by more and more – I mean, the Phoenix Coyotes in the U.S. and other places are starting to adopt this. It is an APP that can be downloaded that can have your various details and your vaccination record, etc.

It is screening 2.0, to use Caryn Seidman-Becker’s analogy there. And if 1.0 was the terrorism-homeland security version that was at the airports specifically for international travel, 2.0 is becoming more invasive and now it’s in order to attend a public event, in order to eventually leave your home – although that idea would have sounded outlandish a little while ago – it isn’t at this point.

So I think there’s a direct continuity, identifiable documentable continuity, between the two agendas. But the person who has articulated that the most clearly in my mind is Giorgio Agamben, an Italian philosopher who has written and talked extensively about this crisis and where it’s coming from. And I have cited him often for giving me that word: Biosecurity.

He wrote an excellent, very concise little piece called Biosecurity and Politics towards the beginning of this entire crisis that really well articulated that concept. But in this book, of his that was recently released called Where are We Now he really brings this out in a way that I think is extremely important to understand.

He says, “We are experiencing the end of an era in the political history of the West. The era of bourgeois democracy founded on constitutions, on rights, on parliaments, and on the divisions of power. This model was already facing a crisis. Constitutional principles were increasingly being ignored. And the executive power had almost entirely replaced the legislative by operating, as it now does, exclusively through legislative decrees.

“With the so-called pandemic, things went further. What American political analysts called the “Security State” which was established in response to terrorism, has now given way to a health-based paradigm of governance that we term “Biosecurity.”

“It is important to understand that Biosecurity, both in its efficacy and in its pervasiveness outdoes EVERY form of governance that we have hithertoo known. As we have been able to see in Italy, but not only here, as soon as a threat to health is declared, people unresistingly consent to limitations on their freedom that they would never have accepted in the past.

“We are facing a paradox – the end of all social relations and political activity is presented as the exemplary form of civic participation.”

Obviously referencing the social distancing paradigm and the incredible shut down of political dissent that we’ve seen in the COVID era, in every form and in every sense. And I think we really have to understand and internalize what Agamben is pointing out here. This is not at base some sort of public health emergency that’s taking place in some sort of decontextualized manner. What we are experiencing is a change-over in the paradigm of governance on the planet. And what differentiates this change-over from a lot of others is it is truly global in nature, and instantaneous.

We can look at previous change-overs in governance from feudalism to mercantilism and other sorts of change-overs that have happened in the past that took place over a period of decades if not centuries and involved different, took different forms in different countries at different times. But we’re watching an almost simultaneous roll-out of a new governance paradigm throughout the world right now based on biosecurity.

And anyone who thinks that that is simply going to disappear when this pandemic is declared over truly does not understand what we’re living through right now. And I think that that to me contextualizes what 9/11 was about, which was the institution of this new form of governance, the “Security State” which enabled all sorts of legislation and other things that gave more, centralized more power in the hands of the executive. Well now we’re seeing the complete take-over with regards to the Biosecurity State and literally the limitation and control of each individual and their participation in society.

GR: Yeah. For certain. I mean I can’t imagine any other way that you can just, you know, shut down economies like that if we did it through, I don’t know, democratic processes.

After 20 years, you know since 9/11, the deep state or secret governments have learned how to adapt to 9/11 skeptical thinking. They expect the people to be more distrustful of government and media. When someone cooks another scheme hidden by media, the reaction is to label it a conspiracy theory and say they are getting information – they’re getting it from internet con-artists or something like that to the extreme of even developing conspiracy sites clandestinely. So that is the confusion of our time 20 years later.

QANON for example, I suspect, is most likely something cooked up by the State. ProporNot featured the release of the names of sites and groups that ask too many of the wrong questions. They’re Kremlin agents essentially.

The point is that this is part of the interpretation of the changing times. Don’t hide the conspiracy. Instead bury it in an avalanche of conspiracy theories. Would you agree to that?

JC: Yes! Not only would I agree to that, but I think even the WHO and other prestigious world bodies would agree to that!

For example, we saw the attempt at the beginning of this crisis to float the idea of an info-demic which was the term that was – I believe it actually was originated a couple of years before the crisis – but they really started trying to push this idea just as this was starting to take off internationally in the media. There is an info-demic of misinformation and disinformation that’s being perpetuated online. And that very quickly morphed into calls for censorship.

And I think what we’re experiencing is not new in the larger historical sense. I think one of the ways that power functions in society is powerful interests and groups wage information warfare on their subject populations. That’s been true throughout history. But to deny that that is taking place now, especially is lunacy, I would say. It’s becoming not just evident but explicit in, for example, the censorship that is now taking place online.

But there’s a second flank to that movement, as you indicate, which is yes, of course there’s the outright censorship and the draconian attempt to control the conversation, but the people who have spent decades if not centuries studying humans and their reactions know that there will be resistance, there will be skepticism, there will be a certain percentage of the public who is likely to, for example, question 9/11 and, for example, question COVID. And what can be done in response to that?

Well, there have been in the past there have been people who have talked quite explicitly about possible responses to that. Like Cass Sunstein who will be familiar to people who have been involved in 9/11 Truth research, as a Harvard Law Professor slash the person who became Obama’s regulatory czar in 2009. In 2008, he wrote a paper on “Conspiracy Theories” – he co-authored the paper – in which he actively advocated for the government to at least consider using undercover operatives to go into conspiracy communities in order to undermine their crippled epistemology and to introduce government talking points into those communities, and other such things.

As I pointed out in a recent editorial, although many people have pointed out time and time again, the horrific nature, the totalitarian mindset that that emerged from and that idea of putting out government propaganda through covert means as a way of trying to undermine the idea that government engages in covert operations against its citizens which is on its face a contradiction. But beyond that, as I pointed out in my editorial, actually its even more insidious than that, because by introducing this idea of “cognitive infiltrators” as he called them going into conspiracy community discussions undercover, he has then introduced into the debate, in conspiracy circles of, well, anyone who doesn’t agree with me is clearly a cognitive infiltrator, and you’re working for the government, and suddenly as we have I think demonstratively seen in the 9/11 Truth space it’s undeniable at this point, it has devolved into warring factions who have become marginalized and then further marginalized and further further marginalized themselves into smaller and smaller groups in which everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a cognitive infiltrator and that’s all that people are interested in talking about.

So unfortunately, I mean, at th-, we’ve seen how the warring commission skepticism was undermined by even the introduction of the phrase “conspiracy theory” through CIA memo 1035-960 I believe it is off the top of my head. And people can look into that history or the ways that for example the CIA were admittedly planting agents within district attorney, Jim Garrison’s investigation in order to feed him misinformation and report back to Langley about what was going on in that investigation. So these types of operations have been underway for a very long time – how to undermine skeptics and people who are trying to inquire, and potentially going to bring prosecution against the actual perpetrators of these events.

Unfortunately, that means they’ve had half a decade to fine-tune – half a century – to fine-tune these various techniques and unfortunately, I think we already seen signs that it’s working quite well in the – even in the conspiracy space as people start again to further and further marginalize themselves, retreat into certain dogmatic positions about what they believe is happening right now. And then, not willing to work with or in any way engage with people who don’t agree every single point about what I think is happening right now. And people are starting to limit themselves into these little boxes.

And then there’s, on top of that, the absolute flood of information and info-demic. That is demonstrably taking place every single day. There’s a thousand new stories that are pertinent to what’s happening right now that no one person could possibly keep on top of all by themselves, and that is absolutely overwhelming.

And put on top of that, not only the health concerns that people have at this time but the mental health concerns about isolation, and lockdowns and all of these things the way they’re affecting people. I won’t say that we’ve never seen such outright levels of total all encompassing warfare on the population through every vector before, but you’d be hard pressed to find one in which it has been so relentless and so long-lasting as this one has already been. And we’re only a year and a half into this.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/hbo-s-new-doc-nyc-epicenters-9-11-2021-offers-ncna1278992
2. https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/spike-lee-nyc-epicenters-september-11-conspiracy-theory-1216982/

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Oregon State Senators Kim Thatcher and Dennis Linthicum jointly filed a formal petition for a federal grand jury investigation into both the CDC and FDA on August 16th in the city of Medford, Oregon, Jackson County. The official letter included eight exhibits and 20 references for evidentiary materials showing a clear need to formally investigate the agencies for willful misconduct.

In March 2020, according to a paper published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law, the CDC abruptly changed how death certificates were recorded for only one type of death—COVID-19—and circumvented multiple federal laws to do so. This hyperinflation of death certificate reporting kicked off an avalanche of data degradation and destructive public health policies.

Now, two Oregon Senators have broken their silence in an exclusive briefing about their letter and the petition calling for a thorough investigation. The project has been a months-in-the-making combined effort between scientific, legal and public policy experts.

The letter, submitted exactly one month prior to public release to protect those involved, was addressed to the Honorable Scott E. Asphaug, U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, which stated:

“What we have learned is worthy of independent State and/or Special Federal Grand Jury Investigation from our vantage point as elected state policy makers. Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3332 – Powers and Duties and the case law cited within the Formal Grand Jury Petition, we respectfully request that the petition and preliminary supportive documentation be presented to the members of the grand jury we are petitioning for immediate deliberation. Public trust in elected officials, the Oregon Health Authority, and our ability to lead the resilient people of Oregon through this crisis has been eroded to an all-time low. The peoples’ trust in their ability to participate in their own governance and be heard by their elected officials is perhaps the most essential element for a thriving free and healthy society. As elected officials it is our sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Oregon, the tenets of Informed Consent, and honor our legal obligation to comply with 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony. We are fulfilling our duty by calling for a Special Federal Grand Jury Investigation, or at the very least an independent state district-led grand jury investigation convened by a judge, into the issues and evidentiary materials presented.”

During this press briefing, Leah Wilson, J.D., Executive Director and Co-Founder of Stand for Health Freedom, which hosted the national public signature gathering, asked revealing questions that should have been asked long ago by mainstream media networks that vacated their duty to impartially investigate and objectively inform the public. To date more than 62,200 signatures have been gathered, including thousands across Oregon where the two senators reside.

Also included on the briefing panel was Dr. Henry Ealy, the lead researcher from a team who authored the peer reviewed papers titled “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective” and “COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During A Global Health Crisis.” His work verified significant findings of federal law violations by the CDC and acts of willful misconduct by the FDA that were thoroughly vetted through nine attorneys and one judge as well as stringent peer-review prior to being released publicly. The papers are also in use across several active court cases, including one filed at the federal level against HHS and the CDC.

In February 2021, Stand for Health Freedom launched a public petition to gather signatures to ask US Attorneys to convene a Grand Jury investigation into the CDC and FDA responses toward COVID-19 following astounding revelations concerning federal law violations and data inaccuracy. We are 20 months after “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Americans deserve to know the integrity of the data relied upon by agencies pushing national health policy and reshaping the fabric of American life. The CDC and FDA are issuing guidance asserted with the authority of federal law that is influencing officials at all levels of government to mandate something created by an industry that holds no liability for risk in selling its experimental and novel vaccine products. Americans are being told that these products are the only viable pathway back to a free and open society.

Senators Thatcher and Linthicum call upon Americans to pursue the federal grand jury process in their respective states to demand greater accountability.

Stand for Health Freedom released this pre-recorded press briefing as an exclusive interview to avoid the same drastic censorship faced following a cyber attack during a national online event covering this topic earlier this year.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Mounting evidence shows natural immunity to COVID trumps vaccine immunity, but experts say the CDC is ignoring the long-standing science of natural immunity and manipulating data to support “what they’ve already decided.”

There is now a growing body of literature showing natural immunity not only confers robust, durable and high-level protection against COVID, but also provides better protection than vaccine-induced immunity.

Yet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is ignoring the long-standing science of natural immunity when it comes to COVID — while acknowledging the benefits of natural immunity for other diseases — according to an expert who accused the agency of providing contradictory, ‘illogical’ COVID messaging.

Dr. Marty Makary, professor of surgery and health policy at John Hopkins University, on Tuesday accused the CDC of “cherry-picking” data and manipulating public health guidance surrounding vaccines and natural immunity to support a political narrative.

Makary joined the “Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” to discuss the clinical impact of natural immunity as it compares to the vaccine.

During the show, Travis pointed out the CDC’s guidance on COVID is inconsistent with its vaccine recommendations for other contagious viruses, like chickenpox.

The CDC’s current guidance for chickenpox, for example, does not encourage those who have contracted it to vaccinate themselves against the virus. The CDC only recommends two doses of chickenpox vaccine for children, adolescents and adults who have never had chickenpox.

“So why doesn’t the CDC say the same thing about those of us who already had COVID?” Travis asked.

Makary called the conflicting guidance “absolutely illogical,” and accused the agency of “ignoring natural immunity.”

“It doesn’t make sense with what they’re putting out on chickenpox,” Makary said. It’s like they have adopted the immune system for one virus, but not for another virus, he said, and “cherry-picking the data to support whatever they’ve already decided.”

“They salami slice it — something we call fishing in statistical techniques,” Makary said. “That is when you look for a tiny sliver of data that supports what you already believe.”

According to a Sept. 13 article in The BMJ, when the COVID vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than a quarter of Americans — 91 million — had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to CDC estimates.

CDC estimates SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 100 million Americans, and evidence is mounting that natural immunity is at least as protective as vaccination. Yet public health leadership says everyone needs the vaccine.https://t.co/lAqZaGHq5A

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) September 15, 2021

As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults between the ages of 18 and 59.

However, the CDC instructed everyone, regardless of previous infection, to get fully vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. On its website, the agency in January justified its guidance by stating natural immunity “varies from person to person” and “experts do not yet know how long someone is protected.”

By June, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found 57% of those previously infected got vaccinated.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical advisor, was asked Sept. 10 by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta whether people who have tested positive for the virus should still get a vaccine.

Gupta cited recent data from Israel suggesting people who recovered from COVID had better protection and a lower risk of contracting the Delta variant, compared to those with Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.

“I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”

The research from Israel did not address the durability that natural immunity offers. Fauci said it is possible for a person to recover from COVID and develop natural immunity, but that protection might not last for nearly as long as the protection provided by the vaccine.

“I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously,” Fauci said.

Numerous studies, however, have shown people who recovered from COVID have robust, durable and long-lasting immunity.

Evidence of natural immunity

As early as November 2020, important studies showed memory B cells and memory T cells formed in response to natural infection — and memory cells respond by producing antibodies to variants at hand.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted by the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, found “durable immune responses” in 95% of the 200 participants up to eight months after infection.

One of the largest studies to date, published in Science in February 2021, found that although antibodies declined over eight months, memory B cells increased over time, and the half-life of memory CD8+ and CD4+ T cells suggests a steady presence.

In a study by New York University published May 3, the authors studied the contrast between vaccine immunity and immunity from prior infection as it relates to stimulating the innate T-cell immunity — which is more durable than adaptive immunity through antibodies alone.

The authors concluded:

“In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects.”

The study further noted:

“Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients, clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells.”

This means natural immunity conveys much more innate immunity, while the vaccine mainly stimulates adaptive immunity — as effector cells trigger an innate response that is quicker and more durable, whereas memory response requires an adaptive mode that is slower to respond.

According to a longitudinal analysis published July 14 in Cell Medicine, most recovered COVID patients produced durable antibodies, memory B cells and durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells –– which target multiple parts of the virus.

“Taken together, these results suggest broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” the authors said.

In other words, unlike with the vaccines, no boosters are required to assist natural immunity.

In a May 12 study conducted by the University of California, researchers found natural immunity conveyed stronger immunity than the vaccine.

The researchers wrote:

“In infection-naïve individuals, the second [vaccine] dose boosted the quantity but not quality of the T cell response, while in convalescents the second dose helped neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx.”

According to The BMJ, studies in Qatar, England, Israel and the U.S. have found infection rates at equally low levels among people who are fully vaccinated and those who have previously had COVID.

As The Defender reported in June, the Cleveland Clinic surveyed more than 50,000 employees to compare four groups based on history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status.

New Cleveland Clinic study found people who had COVID were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had virus—suggesting vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.#TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66EdwTnDhttps://t.co/zvQMuYwHaa

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 9, 2021

Not one of more than 1,300 unvaccinated employees who had been previously infected tested positive during the five months of the study. Researchers concluded the cohort “are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.”

In the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity gained through previous SARS-CoV-2 infection to vaccine-induced immunity afforded by the Pfizer vaccine, researchers in Israel found people who recovered from COVID were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms or be hospitalized.

“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals,” they concluded.

Experts speak out on natural immunity

In a recent letter to the editor of The BMJ, Dr. Manish Joshi, a pulmonologist at UAMS Health; Dr. Thaddeus Bartter, a pulmonologist at UAMS Health; and Anita Joshi, BDS, MPH, said data demonstrate both adequate and long-lasting protection in those who have recovered from COVID, while the duration of vaccine-induced immunity is not fully known.

The authors of the letter said the “SIREN” study in the Lancet addressed the relationships between seropositivity in people with previous COVID infection and subsequent risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 infection over the subsequent seven to 12 months.

The study found prior infection decreased risk of symptomatic reinfection by 93%.

A large cohort study published in JAMA Internal Medicine which looked at 3.2 million U.S. patients, showed the risk of infection was significantly lower (0.3%) in seropositive patients compared to those who were seronegative (3%).

A recent study published in May in the journal Nature demonstrated the presence of long-lived memory immune cells in those who have recovered from COVID-19 suggesting durable and long-lasting immunity.

“This implies a prolonged (perhaps years) capacity to respond to new infection with new antibodies,” the authors wrote.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

More than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and more long-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot

Lawsuits challenge vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection

Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, sued over the school’s vaccine mandate, which did not recognize natural immunity. The school settled out of court, granting Zywicki a medical exemption. They did not, however, change their general policy to recognize other staff and students who have natural immunity

Some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Rutgers University in New Jersey also object to the vaccine mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit is still pending

Since COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus, and COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals, the argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply falls apart

*

While governments around the world are going full steam ahead with plans for vaccine passports, two key things have occurred that blow irreparable holes in the whole argument.

First, more than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot, and secondly, lawsuits have challenged vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection. Other lawsuits highlighting the illegalities of vaccine mandates have also been filed.

The Zywicki Case

As reported by the New York Post,¹ August 4, 2021, when George Mason University in Virginia decided to implement a vaccine mandate, law professor Todd Zywicki sued.² Mason recovered from COVID-19 in 2020 and has natural immunity, as demonstrated by several antibody tests. One of his attorneys, Harriet Hageman, stated:

“Common sense and medical science should underpin GMU’s actions. Both have gone missing with this latest effort to force a distinguished professor to take a vaccine that he does not need — not for his own protection nor for anyone else’s safety at Scalia Law School.”

The lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study³ up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement not only violates due process rights and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but is not compliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.⁴

A Win for GMU Professor but No Legal Precedent

August 17, 2021, George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption to the vaccine requirement.⁵ Unfortunately, and irrationally, the school did not revise its general policy. As reported by Citizens Journal:⁶

“The school’s acknowledgment of natural immunity is significant given the serial case of amnesia that seems to have overtaken the world on this basic point of biology.

However, the school still maintains the vaccination requirement for all other members of the GMU community, regardless of naturally acquired immunity. At the time of this writing, the same medical exemption has not been offered on a broader scale.

Furthermore, the lawsuit would have served as an interesting test case for vaccine mandate-related litigation, which will become more prevalent as time goes on. Regardless, the victory still serves as a sliver of hope that some universities will entertain reasonable arguments and that individuals can fight back with litigation …

With the GMU case resolved without trial, many critical legal arguments went untested. For example, does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause apply to vaccine mandates, or does the state have the ability to suspend such rights when responding to a public health emergency?

How does the reliability of natural immunity affect the constitutionality of policies that fail to recognize it? Can the government simply cherry-pick whatever science it wants to justify its policies? According to the court filing,⁷

‘The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to privacy. A ‘forcible injection … into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty[.]’ Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990).’

Given this precedent, as well as the state’s police powers to suspend individual rights under compelling circumstances, how will this apply to Covid-19 in a low-risk environment such as a college campus?

If the right still holds, how will it apply to city-wide vaccine passport programs, given that Covid-19 is a relatively mild disease? … The move is also mysterious, given the relevance of the matter. As a result, it did not create a binding legal precedent.”

In a statement, lead counsel Jenin Younes with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said:⁸

“NCLA is pleased that GMU granted Professor Zywicki’s medical exemption, which we believe it only did because he filed this lawsuit. According to GMU, with the medical exemption, Prof. Zywicki may continue serving the GMU community, as he has for more than two decades, without receiving a medically unnecessary vaccine and without undue burden.

Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”

While not specifically centered around the validity of natural immunity, a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen students and Children’s Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey does include this aspect, as some of the plaintiffs object to the mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit was filed in mid-August 2021⁹ and is still pending.

Earlier this year, in April 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District was sued over its vaccine requirement by California Educators for Medical Freedom and the Health Freedom Defense Fund.¹⁰July 27, a California court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, as it concluded the LAUSD had voluntarily abandoned its mandatory vaccine requirement. As reported by The Defender:¹¹

“This is a BIG win — because of the lawsuit, LAUSD represented to the court on the record that it does not have a policy requiring vaccination with EUA products. Since the court has now confirmed the absence of any policy requiring vaccination at LAUSD, all teachers and staff are safe to return to work without vaccination or furnishing proof of vaccination in the fall.”

Time will tell if the Children’s Health Defense case against Rutgers University will bring the legal precedent needed to more effectively thwart this tyrannical trend. Still, even smaller wins like Zywicki’s are important and demonstrate there are ways we can fight back, if only we’re willing.

Natural Immunity Surpasses Vaccine-Induced Protection

While vaccine passports are immoral and unconstitutional in and of themselves, medical science is also proving them useless and irrational. As reported by Daniel Horowitz in an August 25, 2021, article in The Blaze,¹² there are at least 15 studies that show natural immunity from previous infection is more robust and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot. He writes:

“The debate over forced vaccination with an ever-waning vaccine is cresting right around the time when the debate should be moot for a lot of people. Among the most fraudulent messages of the CDC’s campaign of deceit is to force the vaccine on those with prior infection, who have a greater degree of protection against all version of the virus than those with any of the vaccines.

It’s time to set the record straight once and for all that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is broader, more durable, and longer-lasting than any of the shots on the market today. Our policies must reflect that reality.”

We now have data showing vaccine immunity rapidly wanes regardless of variants, but especially when a new variant becomes predominant. According to the Mayo Clinic, as of July 2021, Pfizer’s COVID injection was only 42% effective against infection,¹³ which doesn’t even meet the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement of 50% efficacy¹⁴ for COVID vaccines.

This matches Israeli data, which show Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness at the outset, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant.^15,16 Pfizer’s own trial data also demonstrate rapidly waning effectiveness. BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi discussed this in an August 23, 2021, blog.¹⁷

By the fifth month into the trial, efficacy had dropped from 96% to 84%, and this drop could not be due to the emergence of the Delta variant since 77% of trial participants were in the U.S., where the Delta variant didn’t emerge until months later. So, even without a predominance of a new variant, effectiveness drops off. In an August 20, 2021, report, BPR noted:¹⁸

“‘The data we will publish today and next week demonstrate the vaccine effectiveness against SARS COVID 2 infection is waning,’ the CDC director [Rochelle Walensky] began … She cited reports of international colleagues, including Israel ‘suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early’ …

‘In the context of these concerns, we are planning for Americans to receive booster shots starting next month to maximize vaccine induced protection. Our plan is to protect the American people and to stay ahead of this virus,’ Walensky shared …

The CDC director appears to all but admit that the vaccine’s efficacy rate has a strict time limit, and its protections are limited in the ever-changing environment.”

You’re Far Safer Around a Naturally Immune Person

Add to this a) the fact that the COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus and b) the fact that COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals,^19,20 and the whole argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply fails miserably.

As noted by Horowitz, anyone capable of rational thought understands that a person with natural immunity from a previous infection is “exponentially safer to be around than someone who had the vaccines but not prior infection.”²¹

As for the unvaccinated who do not have natural immunity from prior infection, well, their status poses no increased risk to anyone but themselves. Conversely, since the COVID shot cannot prevent infection or transmission, and only promises to reduce your risk of serious illness, the only one who can benefit from the shot is the one who got it. It protects no one else.

In fact, you may actually pose an increased risk to others, because if your symptoms are mild or nonexistent, but your viral load high, you’re more likely to walk around as usual. Rather than staying home because you suspect you’re infected and infectious, you’re out spreading the virus around to others, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

What Does the Research Say?

In his article, Horowitz reviews 15 studies that should, once and for all, settle the debate about whether people who have had COVID are now immune and whether that immunity is comparable to that of the COVID shots. Here’s a select handful of those studies. For the rest, please see the original Blaze article.²²

We’re Creating a Pandemic of the Vaccinated

If natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced antibodies, you’d expect to see fewer reinfections among those who have already had COVID-19, compared to breakthrough infections occurring among those who got the COVID shot. And that’s precisely what we see.

In a preprint titled “Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Previously Infected Individuals,”²⁸ the researchers looked at reinfection rates among previously infected health care workers in the Cleveland Clinic system.

Of the 1,359 frontline workers with natural immunity from previous infection, not a single one was reinfected 10 months into the pandemic, despite heavy exposure to COVID-19-positive patients.

A second preprint,²⁹ posted August 25, 2021, compared SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity by looking at reinfection and breakthrough rates. Four outcomes were evaluated: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death.

Results showed that, compared to those with natural immunity, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s COVID shot had:³⁰

• A 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection
• A 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease
• A 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant
• A higher risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations

After adjusting for comorbidities, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received two Pfizer doses were 27.02 times more likely to experience symptomatic breakthrough infection than those with natural immunity.³¹ No deaths were reported in either of the groups. In closing the authors concluded:³²

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Majority of Hospitalizations Are Actually in the Vaccinated

The oft-repeated refrain is that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” meaning those who have not received the COVID jab make up the bulk of those hospitalized and dying from the Delta variant. However, we’re already seeing a shift in hospitalization rates from the unvaccinated to those who have gotten one or two injections.

For example, in Israel, the fully “vaccinated” made up the bulk of serious cases and COVID-related deaths in July 2021, as illustrated in the graphs below.³³ The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. By mid-August, 59% of serious cases were among those who had received two COVID injections.³⁴

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.³⁵

Data³⁶ from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also refute the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative. Between July 6,2021, and July 25, 2021, 469 COVID cases were identified in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, outbreak.

Of those who tested positive, 74% had received two COVID injections and were considered “fully vaccinated.” Even despite using different diagnostic standards for non-jabbed and jabbed individuals, a whopping 80% of COVID-related hospitalizations were also in this group.^37,38

COVID Shot May Harm Immunity in Those Previously Infected

While the authors of that August 25, 2021, preprint³⁹ claim in their abstract that “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant,” in the body of the article they admit they “could not demonstrate significance in our cohort.”

Unless significance is demonstrated, the finding is basically irrelevant, so I would not rely on this paper if I wanted to argue for vaccination of those with preexisting natural immunity. Besides, there’s research⁴⁰ showing the COVID shots may actually harm the superior T cell immunity built up from prior infection, especially after the second dose. As reported by Horowitz in The Blaze:⁴¹

“Immunologists from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid have raised serious concerns. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found ‘in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.’

They also note that other research has shown ‘the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.'”

Arguments for Vaccine Passports Are Null and Void

FEE.org reported the August 25 findings under the headline, “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished”:⁴²

“Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.

‘Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,’ Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter …

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations. People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated.

Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.”

Positive Signs

While we still have a long and likely hard fight ahead of us, there is reason to be optimistic. In a recent TikTok video,⁴³ a young man named Ari Hasanaj who lives in New York City describes how he printed up posters that say:

“We do not discriminate against ANY customer based on sex, gender, race, creed, age, vaccinated or unvaccinated. All customers who wish to patronize are welcome in our establishment.”

He then went around the city, from one store to the next, asking each owner if they would agree to post the sign on their door to protest NYC’s vaccine passport requirement. A majority said yes. He is now asking others to join him in this effort.

In Denmark, vaccine passports will no longer be used to restrict movement as of September 10, 2021. The health minister, Magnus Heunicke, has stated, though, that the passport system may be reinstated if rising infection rates threaten important functions.

Denmark was among the first to announce the development of a digital vaccine passport, which came into effect in April 2021.⁴⁴ For months, Danes repeatedly demonstrated against the COVID passes, and it seems the protests eventually had the desired effect. It just goes to show that if enough people resist, tyrannical overreach can be reined in.

*

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.

Notes

¹ New York Post August 4, 2021

^2, 7 Zywicki vs George Mason University Case 1:21-cv-00894

³ JAMA Internal Medicine August 16, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]

^{4, 5, 6, 8} Citizens Journal August 25, 2021

⁹ Children’s Health Defense vs Rutgers Case 2: 21-cv-15333

¹⁰ The College Fix April 10, 2021

¹¹ The Defender August 12, 2021

^{12, 21, 22, 41} The Blaze August 25, 2021

¹³ MedRxiv August 8, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707

¹⁴ FiercePharma June 30, 2020

¹⁵ CNBC July 23, 2021

^16, 17 The BMJ Opinion August 23, 2021

¹⁸ BPR August 20, 2021

^19, 36, 37 CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70

²⁰ NBC News August 7, 2021

²³ Immunity May 3, 2021

²⁴ Nature May 24, 2021; 595: 421-425

²⁵ Nature July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462

²⁶ Cell Medicine July 20, 2021; 2(7): 100354

²⁷ BioRxiv July 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.14.452381

²⁸ MedRxiv June 19, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176

^{29, 30, 31, 32, 39} MedRxiv August 25, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

³³ Twitter Alex Berenson July 18, 2021

³⁴ Science August 16, 2021

³⁵ Evening Standard August 20, 2021

³⁸ CNBC July 30, 2021

⁴⁰ BioRxiv March 22, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.22.436441

⁴² FEE.org August 30, 2021

⁴³ TikTok September 2, 2021

⁴⁴ Sundhedsministeriet, August 27, 2021

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Western leftists, the real tyrants, have been waiting for an opportunity to assert full control over their respective countries, and they found that opportunity in a virus.

Left-wing governments throughout the Western world have used the COVID-19 pandemic to impose mandates, lockdowns, and even steal elections in the United States, all in a bid to gain complete control over their people.

Australia is turning into a giant COVID gulag. The Biden regime is using the pandemic to impose unheard of requirements on Americans, tens of millions of whom are now at risk of becoming second-class citizens in their own country. And in Europe, opposition to vaccine mandates is threatening to destabilize the healthcare industry, especially in France, where some 300,000 medical workers haven’t taken the jab and are resisting President Emanuel Macron’s mandate to do so.

The Epoch Times reports:

French people working in the medical sector are required to be vaccinated against the CCP virus or risk a suspension from their jobs without pay under President Emmanuel Macron’s new vaccine mandate that went into effect on Sept. 15.

Two months ago, Macron ordered hospital staff, ambulance technicians, nursing home workers, doctors, fire brigade members, and people caring for the elderly or infirm in their homes—some 2.6 million employees in total, to get a COVID-19 vaccine by Sept. 15, though hundreds of thousands haven’t yet complied with the new rule.

The country’s health authority said that 300,000 French medical field employees have not gotten the jab and so now, some hospitals are in fear they will suffer massive personnel shortages, according to The Associated Press.

“Vaccines are now compulsory for medical care, home care and emergency workers in France, and Wednesday is the deadline for such staff to have had at least one shot. Failing that, they face having pay suspended or not being able to work. But a top court has forbidden staff to be fired outright,” AP reported on the deadline date.

Meanwhile, healthcare workers who have only gotten a single dose of the vaccine will be required to take a COVID test every three days until they receive their second dose; Oct. 15 is the deadline for workers to have gotten both.

The French government noted that as of Sept. 7, about 84 percent of the country’s health care staffers were vaccinated, but that leaves a lot of workers who, potentially, won’t be able to work and fill shifts if they don’t comply by the deadlines.

And it’s very likely that the employers will comply; under Macron’s order, companies and hospitals who don’t will be fined $160 (130 euros) per violation but those can climb to $4,430 (3,750 euros) if they are fined three times in a month, French media reported.

Oh, and there is prison time involved as well; six months behind bars, potentially.

It’s insanity — all of this over a virus with a 99.7 percent recovery and survival rate.

“We feel like we’re living through a third wave, but this time it’s a human resources wave,” Emmanuel Chignon, who owns a nursing home in Western France, told The Epoch Times. Though he managed to remain open throughout the pandemic, now he and other healthcare providers face closure because of a large number of French healthcare workers who would rather quit their jobs than get the vaccine.

Vanessa Perotti, a health care worker at “Hopital Beaujon” in Clichy, a working-class suburb in Paris, said she’s angry.

“I’m disgusted. In any case, there’s nothing I can do. I just have to accept it,” she said after quitting her healthcare industry position for refusing to get the jab.

“I’m not going to force myself to get injected with something just to work,” said Perotti. “Maybe it’s harmful, maybe it’s not, but I don’t want anyone to impose it on me. It’s not ethical, we’re free to do what we want with our bodies.”

Not anymore — at least, not with the COVID-19 vaccine. Abortions, yes; this vaccine, no.

*

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 is from Vaccines.news

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Healthcare workers in New York have been given a reprieve from the state’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mandate. This comes after a group of 17 healthcare professionals sued the state of New York to enjoin the enforcement of its unconstitutional vaccine mandate. The state issued its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Aug. 28. This required all healthcare workers at hospitals and nursing homes to get at least one dose of the vaccine by Sept. 27.

This mandate does not recognize religious exemptions to vaccinations. The healthcare workers who sued the state believe the lack of an exemption is an attempt to nullify the protections for sincerely held religious beliefs granted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “The same frontline healthcare workers hailed as heroes by the media for treating COVID patients before vaccines were available, including the plaintiffs herein, are now vilified by the same media as pariahs who must be excluded from society until they are vaccinated against their will,” reads the lawsuit. The lack of an exemption for people with deeply held religious beliefs against vaccinations also stands in stark contrast to an earlier mandate pushed by the state that did have those protections.

“What New York is attempting to do is slam shut an escape hatch from an unconstitutional mandate,” said Christopher Ferrara, a lawyer for the pro-religious liberty Thomas More Society. “And they are doing this while knowing that many people have sincere religious objections to vaccines that were tested, developed or produced with cell lines derived from aborted children.” Ferrara is also one of the attorneys representing the New York healthcare workers in their case against the vaccine mandate. In his case, Ferrara pointed out that New York has no right to nullify a federal law that protects people with sincerely held religious beliefs against discrimination. “This is a brazen power grab by people who think they can get away with anything,” he said. Along with citing violations to the Constitution, the lawsuit alleges that the lack of exemptions for people with sincerely held religious beliefs is also a violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Further legal battles over New York’s vaccine mandate expected

Judge David N. Hurd of the District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and issued an order temporarily blocking the state from enforcing its vaccine mandate. Hurd then gave the state until Sept. 22 to respond to the lawsuit in federal court. If the state opposes the request of the plaintiffs for a preliminary court order blocking the vaccine mandate, an oral hearing will be held on Sept. 28 to decide the matter.

The 17 plaintiffs are all Christians and they include practicing doctors, nurses, a nuclear medical technologist, a cognitive rehabilitation therapist and a physician’s liaison. The lawsuit made it clear that they all want to proceed with the case anonymously because they “run the risk of ostracization, threats of harm, immediate firing and other retaliatory consequences if their names become known.” “Without court intervention, these health professionals face loss of occupation, professional status and employability anywhere in the state of New York,” said Ferrara. All of them oppose the COVID-19 vaccines as a matter of religious conviction, and they do not want to cooperate in any medical procedure that relates to abortion or the use of matter from aborted children. In a statement, Ferrara made it clear that his clients are not against vaccines. “They are in fact in favor of voluntary vaccination with informed consent, but they oppose jack-booted coercion by the state to take a vaccine their religion forbids them to take. This is America, not Red China,” he said.

*

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 is from AFW

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Joe Biden issued a mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees to require all staff to either take a COVID-19 vaccine or be subjected to weekly testing, lest the company be fined $14,000 for each violation.

This, after Biden as ‘president-elect’ vowed he did not have the authority to issue any vaccine mandates on private businesses and individuals.

At the same time, King Biden said that all federal employees and federal contractors would also have to get the jab, but it turns out he lied about that, too, and at the same time gave every business he commanded a legal out, as if they needed one, given that Biden’s order is unconstitutional on its face.

Turns out that members of Congress and their staffs are exempt, along with about a quarter of the overall federal workforce, The Epoch Times reported:

…President Joe Biden unveiled two executive orders that could mandate vaccinations for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus for millions of working Americans in both the public and private spheres. But absent from these mandates are similar requirements for members of Congress, federal judges, or their staffers.

Biden’s executive orders would unilaterally require vaccination for federal employees, the military, and government contractors. The president also asked Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require that firms with over 100 employees either mandate vaccination or weekly CCP virus tests. In total, these mandates could affect over 100 million American workers, making it one of the widest-reaching vaccine mandates in world history.

“It is the policy of my Administration to halt the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant, by relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures,” Biden wrote in his order.

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that the best way to slow the spread of COVID-19 and to prevent infection by the Delta variant or other variants is to be vaccinated,” the order continued.

When he addressed the nation, Biden indicated that in addition to private industry, federal employees would be mandated as well.

“I will sign an executive order that will now require all executive branch federal employees to be vaccinated — all.  And I’ve signed another executive order that will require federal contractors to do the same,” Biden said. “If you want to work with the federal government and do business with us, get vaccinated. If you want to do business with the federal government, vaccinate your workforce.”

However, as The Epoch Times noted, “not included in the executive orders are mandates for members of federal employees in the legislative or judicial branches, including members of Congress, their staffers, as well as federal judges and other court employees.”

But reports last week said that U.S. Postal Service workers are going to be exempted. The Washington Post reported that the union representing the 644,000 USPS workers had carved out a deal where they would not be required to get the jab, though the New York Post says the White House has issued a “clarification” stating otherwise.

“The White House issued a clarification late Thursday after the Washington Post, citing an official, reported USPS workers were not required to get the shot and were only being ‘strongly encouraged’ to do so,” The Post reported.

“USPS is not included in the executive order requiring vaccination of Federal employees. USPS has a separate statutory scheme and is traditionally independent of federal personnel actions like this,” said an administration official.

The administration saying that the USPS is not actually exempt is meaningless; the Washington Post wouldn’t get something like this wrong about a Democrat regime. But beyond that, it makes perfect sense that our elites are ‘exempt’ from the mandate they impose on us.

*

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 is from NaturalNews.com

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The announcement that the United States and the United Kingdom will help Australia build nuclear submarines, enhance U.S. troop presence, and jointly collaborate on cyber, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies has been generally hailed in Washington.

However, the new alliance (which the nations have named the awkward-sounding AUKUS), will only add to the dark clouds hovering over Asia. It catapults Australia into the ranks of “frontline states” in a U.S.-led strategy toward China that looks less like balancing and more like containment with every passing year, with attendant arms races and potential for military crises.

Make no mistake, AUKUS is only the latest in an ever-denser web of military interconnections Washington is helping weave around China. The Quad (U.S.-India- Australia-Japan), India-France-Australia, US-Japan-India, and India-Japan-Australia have supplemented the US-Japan-Australia Trilateral Strategic Dialogue that was inaugurated in 2001. The U.K.’s entry into these China-centric minilaterals has however come with a particularly potent edge — the nuclear dimension. This may be because the three Western powers perceive a special civilizational bond with each other, with accompanying anxieties about the rise of an Asian peer.

Except for India, all participants in the Washington-led minilaterals are U.S. treaty allies. The anomalous status of New Delhi is being made up through socialization and opinion-making among elites, along with arms sales and “foundational” defense agreements. Military interoperability and joint war-fighting exercises are at the core of most of these groupings. In fact, the best geometry describing these trilaterals and quadrilaterals is that of a sharp arrow, with its tip aimed straight at Beijing.

A repetitive stream of rhetoric has accompanied these initiatives. We are constantly told they stand for the “rule of law,” “freedom of navigation,”” inclusivity” and so forth. But the irony of the past 20 years of a U.S.-led expansive “war on terror” across the Middle East, with its 900,000 dead, $8 trillion largely wasted, many violations of international law, and severe erosion of America’s own cherished values of liberty and limited government, surely cannot be lost on any objective observer. The fact is that the United States and the United Kingdom are simply in no position to lecture China or anyone else on the norms and values question unless they demonstrate serious accountability and reparations for their destructive actions since 9/11.

In their joint remarks, President Biden and Prime Minister Morrison were at pains to dispel any impression that the submarine project involves nuclear weapons. But AUKUS was justified in terms of “rapidly evolving threats.” Couldn’t further such perceived “evolution” open the door to an Australian nuclear deterrent? The submarine designs in question could easily accommodate such a shift. Any security rival must take this possibility into account. China can logically be expected to take countermeasures.

But it is not just China that will perceive a threat from AUKUS. The Australian defense minister’s assertion of seeking “regional superiority” will alarm its Southeast Asian neighbors, especially Indonesia. Though Jakarta’s ties with Canberra have improved markedly in recent years, the two share a contentious past that could come alive again if a new cold war accelerates in Asia. In its single-minded  taking up the cudgels against Beijing, Canberra may have bitten off more than it can chew.

Australia is a non-nuclear state with a historically hawkish stance toward non-proliferation. But as nuclear experts have pointed out, nuclear submarines of the sort that the US and UK will build for Australia are prone to proliferation with Highly Enriched Uranium as fuel. Naval reactors are mostly  excluded from international nuclear safeguards. But we should not be surprised that proliferation concerns have taken a backseat to China-containment. In the 1980’s the nuclear ambitions of another “frontline state” — Pakistan — were willfully ignored as Washington embraced a dangerous strategy of arming and training Salafi militants in Afghanistan as a part of the Cold War containment strategy against the Soviet Union.

Such a non-state option is not seen as viable to counter China, which increases Washington’s emphasis on Cold War-style alliance building. But China is no Soviet Union. The two states are similar in terms of their penchant for domestic repression. But Moscow pushed a revolutionary project to remake the global economy and install Marxist-Leninist oriented regimes across the world. China’s excessive maritime claims and assertive actions in its backyard are clearly of concern. But these actions do not threaten the U.S. mainland, which is where most Americans live.

Also, Beijing’s territorial claims do not originate so much from the Chinese Communist Party as from the Chinese nation-state itself, ironically governed back then by the Kuomintang, which later founded the Taiwanese state. Which explains why Taiwan has similar claims and maintains militarized islands in the South China Sea. There is also no evidence that China presents a serious threat to freedom of commerce and travel in its maritime neighborhood, which makes the intent of U.S. FONOPs in Asia questionable at best, and downright provocative at worst.

China is indeed an existential threat to Taiwan and to border regions of India. But other regional powers have varying perceptions on Beijing, with Southeast Asia having a much more benign view. It is difficult to argue Beijing has the  conquest of other states in mind, least of all the United States. The economic challenge that China presents cannot be countered with military alliances.

What provokes Washington’s anxieties is the very rise of China itself. The United States fears it will eventually have to give up its global armed dominance and share power in the international system with a non-Western actor, four times its population. But this declinist anxiety is no reason to enmesh the world in another dangerous bipolarity, that too by helping construct what looks like a global China-containing bloc. We barely survived the last time it happened.

It is also ironic that a climate action-hostile leader — Scott Morrison — is being bestowed with nuclear-capable gifts, when by President Biden’s own characterization, climate change is an “existential threat” faced by the world (which China isn’t). If this is true, shouldn’t the United States be forging a fundamentally different approach toward China?

Imagine if, instead of the escalatory step of a nuclear-tipped AUKUS alliance, President Biden had announced a specific security confidence-building step in the region (for example, announcing a time-bound suspension of FONOPs), and dared Beijing to respond in kind? Going even further, imagine if Washington had proposed an alliance, not in the hackneyed style of 20^th century containment, but inclusive of Beijing and nonaligned regional powers in Southeast Asia to counter climate threats to fragile nation states and communities in Asia? Now that would have been real leadership worthy of a superpower.

*

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 is from US Indo-Pacific Command

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The collapse of the American project in Afghanistan may fade fast from the news here, but don’t be fooled. It couldn’t be more significant in ways few in this country can even begin to grasp.

“Remember, this is not Saigon,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a television audience on August 15th, the day the Taliban swept into the Afghan capital, pausing to pose for photos in the grandly gilded presidential palace. He was dutifully echoing his boss, President Joe Biden, who had earlier rejected any comparison with the fall of the South Vietnamese capital, Saigon, in 1975, insisting that “there’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy of the United States from Afghanistan. It is not at all comparable.”

Both were right, but not in the ways they intended. Indeed, the collapse of Kabul was not comparable. It was worse, incomparably so. And its implications for the future of U.S. global power are far more serious than the loss of Saigon.

On the surface, similarities abound. In both South Vietnam and Afghanistan, Washington spent 20 years and countless billions of dollars building up massive, conventional armies, convinced that they could hold off the enemy for a decent interval after the U.S. departure. But presidents Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam and Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan both proved to be incompetent leaders who never had a chance of retaining power without continued fulsome American backing.

Amid a massive North Vietnamese offensive in the spring of 1975, President Thieu panicked and ordered his army to abandon the northern half of the country, a disastrous decision that precipitated Saigon’s fall just six weeks later. As the Taliban swept across the countryside this summer, President Ghani retreated into a fog of denial, insisting his troops defend every remote, rural district, allowing the Taliban to springboard from seizing provincial capitals to capturing Kabul in just 10 days.

With the enemy at the gates, President Thieu filled his suitcases with clinking gold bars for his flight into exile, while President Ghani (according to Russian reports) snuck off to the airport in a cavalcade of cars loaded with cash. As enemy forces entered Saigon and Kabul, helicopters ferried American officials from the U.S. embassy to safety, even as surrounding city streets swarmed with panicked local citizens desperate to board departing flights.

Critical Differences

So much for similarities. As it happens, the differences were deep and portentous. By every measure, the U.S. capacity for building and supporting allied armies has declined markedly in the 45 years between Saigon and Kabul. After President Thieu ordered that disastrous northern retreat, replete with dismal scenes of soldiers clubbing civilians to board evacuation flights bound for Saigon, South Vietnam’s generals ignored their incompetent commander-in-chief and actually began to fight.

On the road to Saigon at Xuan Loc, an ordinary South Vietnamese unit, the 18th Division, fought battle-hardened North Vietnamese regulars backed by tanks, trucks, and artillery to a standstill for two full weeks. Not only did those South Vietnamese soldiers take heavy casualties, with more than a third of their men killed or wounded, but they held their positions through those long days of “meat-grinder” combat until the enemy had to circle around them to reach the capital.

In those desperate hours as Saigon was falling, General Nguyen Khoa Nam, head of the only intact South Vietnamese command, faced an impossible choice between making a last stand in the Mekong Delta and capitulating to communist emissaries who promised him a peaceful surrender. “If I am unable to carry out my job of protecting the nation,” the general told a subordinate, “then I must die, along with my nation.” That night, seated at his desk, the general shot himself in the head. In South Vietnam’s last hours as a state, four of his fellow generals also committed suicide. At least 40 more lower-ranking officers and soldiers also chose death over dishonor.

On the road to Kabul, by contrast, there were no heroic last stands by regular Afghan army units, no protracted combat, no heavy casualties, and certainly no command suicides. In the nine days between the fall of Afghanistan’s first provincial capital on August 6th and the capture of Kabul on August 15th, all of the well-equipped, well-trained Afghan soldiers simply faded away before Taliban guerrillas equipped mainly with rifles and tennis sneakers.

After losing their salaries and rations to graft for the previous six to nine months, those hungry Afghan troops simply surrendered en masse, took Taliban cash payments, and handed over their weapons and other costly U.S. equipment. By the time the guerrillas reached Kabul, driving Humvees and wearing Kevlar helmets, night-vision goggles, and body armor, they looked like so many NATO soldiers. Instead of taking a bullet, Afghanistan’s commanders took the cash — both graft from padding their payrolls with “ghost soldiers” and bribes from the Taliban.

The difference between Saigon and Kabul has little to do with the fighting ability of the Afghan soldier. As the British and Soviet empires learned to their dismay when guerrillas slaughtered their soldiers in spectacular numbers, ordinary Afghan farmers are arguably the world’s finest fighters. So why wouldn’t they fight for Ashraf Ghani and his secular democratic state in far-off Kabul?

The key difference would seem to lie in the fading of America’s aura as the planet’s number one power and of its state-building capacities. At the peak of its global hegemony back in the 1960s, the United States, with its unequalled material resources and moral authority, could make a reasonably convincing case to the South Vietnamese that the political mix of electoral democracy and capitalist development it sponsored was the way forward for any nation. Today, with its reduced global clout and tarnished record in Iraq, Libya, and Syria (as well as in prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo), America’s capacity to infuse its nation-building projects with any real legitimacy — that elusive sine qua non for the survival of any state — has apparently dropped significantly.

The Impact on U.S. Global Power

In 1975, the fall of Saigon did indeed prove a setback to Washington’s world order. Still, America’s underlying strength, both economic and military, was robust enough then for a partial rebound.

Adding to the sense of crisis at the time, the loss of South Vietnam coincided with two more substantial blows to Washington’s international system and the clout that went with it. Just a few years before Saigon’s collapse, the German and Japanese export booms had so eroded America’s commanding global economic position that the Nixon administration had to end the automatic convertibility of the dollar to gold. That, in turn, effectively broke the Bretton Woods system that had been the foundation of U.S. economic strength since 1944.

Meanwhile, with Washington mired in its self-made Vietnam quagmire, that other Cold War power, the Soviet Union, continued to build hundreds of nuclear-armed missiles and so functionally forced Washington to recognize its military parity in 1972 by signing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Strategic Arms Limitation Protocol.

With the weakening of the economic and nuclear pillars on which so much of America’s paramount power rested, Washington was forced to retreat from its role as the great global hegemon and become a mere first among equals.

Washington’s Relations with Europe

Almost half a century later, the sudden, humiliating fall of Kabul threatens even that more limited leadership role. Although the U.S. occupied Afghanistan for 20 years with the full support of its NATO allies, when President Biden walked away from that shared “nation-building” mission, he did so without the slightest consultation with those very allies.

America lost 2,461 soldiers in Afghanistan, including 13 who died tragically during the airport evacuation. Its allies suffered 1,145 killed, including 62 German soldiers and 457 British troops. No wonder those partners held understandable grievances when Biden acted without the slightest notice to or discussion with them. “There is serious loss of trust,” observed Wolfgang Ischinger, the former German ambassador to Washington. “But the real lesson… for Europe is this: Do we really want to be totally dependent on U.S. capabilities and decisions forever, or can Europe finally begin to be serious about becoming a credible strategic actor?”

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The black prison-like fencing that was a mainstay around Capitol Hill during the first half of the year has gone back up ahead of a protest scheduled this weekend, which President Trump has warned is a “setup”.

The fencing has been re-erected in response to the “Justice for J6” rally planned for Saturday at the US Capitol building, which is focused on the 600 defendants being detained for being part of the January 6th incident.

Video of the fencing also reveals that a motion-tracking watchtower has been put into place, presumably fitted with face recognition cameras and whatever other surveillance equipment is at hand to deploy on Americans practising their right to freedom of speech.

Capitol Police have said the fencing will come down again straight away, if the protest is carried out peacefully.

A statement also noted that

“The USCP has asked the Department of Defense for the ability to receive National Guard support should the need arise on September 18.”

As The Hill contributor Don Wolfensberger notes,

“The new protective barrier, even if only temporary, as officials insist, still reinforces public perceptions that Congress is once again walling itself off as fortress on a Hill, above and apart from the people it purports to represent.”

He continues,

“And that perception only further exacerbates the widening gulf of distrust between the government and the governed. Will a new fence be re-installed every time a planned rally threatens potential violence against Congress?”

Meanwhile, President Trump has warned that the event on Saturday could be used as a “setup”.

In an interview with The Federalist, Trump said “On Saturday, that’s a setup,” adding “If people don’t show up they’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s a lack of spirit.’ And if people do show up they’ll be harassed.”

In a further statement, Trump noted

“Our hearts and minds are with the people being persecuted so unfairly relating to the January 6th protest concerning the Rigged Presidential Election.”

He added that

“in addition to everything else, it has proven conclusively that we are a two-tiered system of justice. In the end, however, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!”

*

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 is by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The European Parliament passed a resolution on Thursday (16 September) making a clear distinction between the Russian people and the regime of President Vladimir Putin, which it described as a “stagnating authoritarian kleptocracy led by a president-for-life surrounded by a circle of oligarchs”.

The resolution, approved by 494 votes to 103, which came on the eve of a three-day vote to elect a new Russian parliament, states that a democratic future for Russia is possible and that the European Council must adopt an EU strategy for this scenario.

“If this week’s parliamentary elections in Russia are recognised as fraudulent, the EU should not recognise the Russian Duma and should ask for the country to be suspended from international parliamentary assemblies, including the one of the Council of Europe,” said Andrius Kubilius, the Lithuanian MEP who drafted the resolution, following the vote.

However, Russia’s ruling party is expected to secure a resounding victory, although the voting conditions may fall short of democratic standards. Lawmakers demanded that the EU be prepared to withhold recognition of the election results if they are conducted in violation of democratic principles and international law.

The Parliament said the EU must establish an alliance with the United States and other like-minded partners to counterbalance the efforts of Russia and China to weaken democracy worldwide and destabilise Europe’s political order. This broad alliance should foresee sanctions, policies to counter illicit financial flows, and support for human rights activists.

On Russia’s aggression and influence on the EU’s eastern neighbourhood, the EU must continue to support ‘Eastern Partnership’ countries like Ukraine and Georgia and to promote European reforms and fundamental freedoms in the region. These efforts should also serve to encourage Russian support for democratic reforms.

The text added that the EU needs to cut its dependency on Russian gas, oil, and other raw materials, at least while Putin is in power. The European Green Deal and the boosting of new resources will play a crucial geopolitical role in achieving this, it said.

MEPs want the EU to build its capacity to expose and stop the flows of dirty money from Russia and to expose the resources and financial assets that autocrats and oligarchs close to the regime have hidden in EU member states.

“[The EU] needs more courage in taking a strong stance vis-a-vis the Kremlin regime when it comes to defending human rights; this is what strategic engagement with the Russian people is all about. It is about ending domestic repression, returning the choice to the people, and freeing all political prisoners,” said Kubilius.

“The Kremlin’s continuous repression of all opposition candidates, free media and NGOs undermines the legitimacy and fairness of these elections. The Russian people must have the right to choose and their choices must be honoured, as in any other democratic country”, he added.

*

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 is from OffGuardian

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

BREAKING: Dr. Julie Ponesse officially terminated from Huron College this morning.

Full interview coming soon.#IStandWithJuliePonesse@huronatwestern @WesternU @CCCAlliance pic.twitter.com/hoHsOGSOIO

— Bright Light News (@BLNewsMedia) September 16, 2021

*

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.

Our thanks to Mark Taliano for bringing this to our attention.

Stop the Covid Holocaust! Open Letter

By Rabbi Hillel Handler, Hagar Schafrir, and et al., September 16, 2021

It is obvious to us that another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. The majority of the world’s populace do not yet realize what is happening, for magnitude of an organized crime such as this is beyond their scope of experience.

Local Detroit TV Asks for Stories of Unvaxxed Dying from COVID – Gets over 180K Responses of Vaccine Injured and Dead Instead

By Brian Shilhavy, September 16, 2021

The corporate media narrative that unvaccinated people are filling up the hospitals and dying from COVID is quickly falling apart, perhaps faster than they even expected.

Workers Are Being Put in “The Line of Fire”: Organized Labour and Mandatory Vaccines

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 16, 2021

Throughout the previous year, governments and corporations have crushed the exercise of our human rights, constitutional rights, and civil liberties on a massive scale.  The scope of the violations integral to the assault on people’s rights is now being rapidly extended into the imposition of government-sanctioned vaccine mandates.

Twilight’s Last Gleaming. Biden’s So-called Vaccine Mandates. Judge Napolitano

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, September 16, 2021

It was scandalous and infuriating to hear President Joseph R. Biden argue last week that his so-called vaccine mandates somehow have nothing to do with freedom or personal choice. In saying that, he has rejected our history, our values and the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Video: Why Vaccine Passports Are Illegal in Canada

By Nicholas Wansbutter, September 15, 2021

Nicholas Wansbutter, a criminal defense lawyer and host of Don’t Talk TV, talks about vaccine passports in Canada. According to him, vaccine passports are extremely problematic for two reasons: 1) issue of consent and 2) human rights implications.

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, September 16, 2021

Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK) and VAERS (USA), have now recorded many more deaths and injuries from the COVID-!9 “vaccine” roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.

Biometric ID in British Columbia: BCNDP Government Implements Social Credit System with the BC Vaccine Passport

By Tracey Young, September 15, 2021

On August 23rd, 2021, the BC government announced they were moving forward with their plan to implement a Biometric identification (ID) and social credit system in B.C. that is tied to peoples’  COVID-19 vaccine status.

An American General Has Suggested that His Country Could Attack China

By Tom Clifford, September 16, 2021

Chinese hardliners just had their stance justified by the erratic, verging on unhinged, behavior in the United States and by its military.

Assisted Dying Is Open to Abuse

By Janet Menage, September 16, 2021

If anecdotal reports and statistics showing a positive correlation between midazolam prescriptions and deaths in the over-65s (3) are to be believed, it appears that euthanasia may have already been taking place on an illegal basis, predominantly in care homes.

Another Look at 9/11: Ask Not ‘What Happened?’ but ‘Who Did It?’

By Philip Giraldi, September 16, 2021

The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last Saturday has raised many of the usual issues about what actually happened on that day. Were hijacked airliners actually crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or was the damage in New York City attributable to explosives or even some kind of nuclear device?

US Plans to Support and Finance the Afghan Mujahideen from Early 1979

By Shane Quinn, September 16, 2021

It was surely no coincidence, as the Jimmy Carter administration was looking on in horror at “the loss of Iran” in early 1979, that Washington rapidly moved to increase its presence in the Middle East and surrounding regions. A principal area of focus for the Americans was Afghanistan, which shares a 570 mile border with resource rich Iran to the west.

Dear Global Research Readers and Authors,

Last week, on September 9, 2021, the Centre for Research on Globalization  (CRG) Commemorated its Twentieth Anniversary. 

A Webinar was held under the title Worldwide Resistance against “Covid Fraud” and the Killer mRNA “Vaccine”. 

On Saturday September 18, 2021, we will be holding a Second Webinar, this time under the auspices of our French language website www.mondialisation.ca. 

The debate and dialogue will be in French.

Among our speakers and invited guests are: Dr. Pascal Sacré, Pierre de la Chaîne Décodeur and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky. The debate will be chaired by Dr. Micheline Ladouceur.

Below are details of the Webinar. Our English speaking and bilingual readers and authors are cordially invited to participate in this event. 

***

Webinaire : Crise Covid-19, Fraude scientifique, « Vaccin tueur » et Passe sanitaire

Le samedi 18 septembre 2021 à 19h (Paris) et à 13h (Montréal)

Le site internet du CRM a été créé le 9 septembre 2001, deux jours avant les événements tragiques du 11- Septembre. À peine quelques jours plus tard, notre site internet (bilingue) devenait une source d’information majeure sur le Nouvel Ordre Mondial et la « guerre contre le terrorisme » de Washington.

Pour commémorer notre vingtième anniversaire, nous invitons nos lecteurs et auteurs à participer à un webinaire axé sur la crise actuelle Covid-19.

Les invités au débat :

Dr Pascal Sacré, médecin anesthésiste-réanimateur

 

Pierre, statisticien, créateur de la chaîne Décoder l’éco.

Michel Chossudovsky, auteur, professeur de sciences économiques,

fondateur et directeur du CRM, Montréal

Le débat sera présidé par :

Micheline Ladouceur : Ph.D. en géographie.

Directrice associée du CRM, Rédactrice de Mondialisation.ca.

Le débat sera suivi d’un dialogue entre participants et panélistes.

*****

La réunion a été programmée sur ZOOM : le samedi 18 septembre 2021

19h00, heure de Paris, Bruxelles

18h Alger, Londres

13h Montréal, New York, Martinique, Guadeloupe

12h Sao Paulo, Brésil, Mexico

10h Vancouver, Los Angeles

17h Dakar

LINK ZOOM

Cliquez le lien ci-dessous

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86279282825?pwd=VVBaYXQ4OVhMN3ovSkhOa01ZWkVCQT09

CODES :

ID de la réunion : 862 7928 2825

Code d’accès : 033700

Pour toutes questions veuillez communiquer à l’adresse courriel suivante :

[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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last Saturday has raised many of the usual issues about what actually happened on that day. Were hijacked airliners actually crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or was the damage in New York City attributable to explosives or even some kind of nuclear device? These are fundamental questions and the so-called “Truthers” who raise them have been inspired by their reading of the 585 page 9/11 Report, which is most charitably described as incomplete, though many would reasonably call it a government cover-up.

I have long believed that unless one actually sees or experiences something first hand the description of any event is no better than hearsay. The closest I came to “seeing” 9/11 was the panicked evacuation of a CIA office building, where I was working at the time. Another related bit of 9/11 narrative also came from two close friends who were driving into work at the Pentagon when they each independently observed what appeared to be a large plane passing over their cars and striking the building. I consider the sources credible but was it an airplane or a missile? And I was not there to see it with my own eyes, so I am reluctant to claim that my friends actually saw something that in retrospect might have been misconstrued.

Critics of the physical and engineering aspects of the accepted narrative certainly have a great deal of expert evidence that supports their case. The way the towers fell as well as the collapse of Building 7 nearby are suggestive of something other than the impact of an airliner near the top of the structure, but I am no expert in the science of the matter and have avoided expressing a view regarding it.

Apart from what happened, I have always been more intrigued by “Who done it?” I found the 9/11 Report to be conspicuously lacking in its failure to cover possible foreign involvement, to include the Saudis, Pakistanis and the Israelis. Indeed, President Joe Biden has taken steps that have resulted in the declassification and release of 16 pages of the notorious 28-page redaction of documents relating to any possible Saudi role. The document consists of interviews with Saudi student Omar al-Bayoumi, who reportedly helped support several hijackers.

The Saudis are being sued by 9/11 survivors, but it is unlikely that anything really sensitive will ever be exposed, as explained by investigative journalist Jim Bovard. Indeed, the documents released last Saturday did not demonstrate that the Saudi government itself played any direct role in 9/11, though it is clear that wealthy Saudis and even members of the Royal Family had been supporting and funding al-Qaeda. It is also known that that Saudi Embassy and Consulate employees in the U.S. had funded the alleged hijackers.

Friends who were in CIA’s Counterterrorism Center at the time of 9/11 tend to believe that the Saudis were indeed supporting their fellow citizens while in the U.S. but were likely not knowledgeable regarding any terrorist plot. They observed, however, that there was considerable evidence that Israel knew in advance about what was impending and may have even been instrumental in making sure that it succeeded.

The evidence of Israeli involvement is substantial, based on the level of the Jewish state’s espionage operations in the U.S. and also its track record on so-called covert actions simulating terrorist attacks designed to influence political decision making in foreign countries. But, of course, in reporting on the 9/11 tragedy no one in the mainstream media did pick up on the connection, inhibited no doubt by the understanding that there are some things that one just does not write about Israel if one hopes to remain employed. That is true in spite of the fact that the Israeli angle to 9/11 is without a doubt a good story, consigned to the alternative media, where it can be marginalized by critics as a conspiracy theory or the product of anti-Semitism.

In the year 2001 Israel was running a massive spying operation directed against Muslims either resident or traveling in the United States. The operation included the creation of a number of cover companies in New Jersey, Florida and also on the west coast that served as spying mechanisms for Mossad officers. The effort was supported by the Mossad Station in Washington DC and included a large number of volunteers, the so-called “art students” who traveled around the U.S. selling various products at malls and outdoor markets. The FBI was aware of the numerous Israeli students who were routinely overstaying their visas but they were regarded as a minor nuisance and were normally left to the tender mercies of the inspectors at the Bureau of Customs and Immigration.

The Israelis were also running more sophisticated intelligence operations inside the United States, many of which were focused on Washington’s military capabilities and intentions. Some specialized intelligence units concentrated on obtaining military and dual use technology. It was also known that Israeli spies had penetrated the phone systems of the U.S. government, to include those at the White House.

All of that came into focus on September 11, 2001, when a New Jersey housewife saw something from the window of her apartment building, which overlooked the World Trade Center. She watched as the buildings burned and crumbled but also noted something strange. Three young men were kneeling on the roof of a white transit van parked by the water’s edge, making a movie in which they featured themselves high fiving and laughing in front of the catastrophic scene unfolding behind them. The woman wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police, who responded quickly and soon both the local force and the FBI began looking for the vehicle, which was subsequently seen by other witnesses in various locations along the New Jersey waterfront, its occupants “celebrating and filming.”

The license plate number revealed that the van belonged to a New Jersey registered company called Urban Moving Systems. The van was identified and pulled over. Five men between the ages of 22 and 27 years old emerged to be detained at gunpoint and handcuffed. They were all Israelis. One of them had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock and another had two foreign passports. Bomb sniffing dogs reacted to the smell of explosives in the van.

According to the initial police report, the driver identified as Sivan Kurzberg, stated “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” The five men were detained at the Bergen County jail in New Jersey before being transferred the FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which handles allegations of spying.

After the arrest, the FBI obtained a warrant to search Urban Moving System’s Weehawken, NJ, offices. Papers and computers were seized. The company owner Dominick Suter, also an Israeli, answered FBI questions but when a follow-up interview was set up a few days later it was learned that he had fled the country for Israel, putting both his business and home up for sale. It was later learned that Suter has been associated with at least fourteen businesses in the United States, mostly in New Jersey and New York but also in Florida.

The five Israelis were held in Brooklyn, initially on charges relating to visa fraud. FBI interrogators questioned them for more than two months. Several were held in solitary confinement so they could not communicate with each other and two of them were given repeated polygraph exams, which they failed when claiming that they were nothing more than students working summer jobs. The two men that the FBI focused on most intensively were believed to be Mossad staff officers and the other three were volunteers helping with surveillance. Interestingly, photo evidence demonstrated that they had been seen “casing” the area where they were seen celebrating on the day before, indicating that they had prior knowledge of the attack.

A high-quality photo, top, shows the area the dancing Israelis were staged. Credit | Panamza

The Israelis were not exactly cooperative, but the FBI concluded from documents obtained at their office in Weehawken that they had been targeting Arabs in New York and New Jersey. The FBI concluded that there was a distinct possibility that the Israelis had actually monitored the activities of at least two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers while the cover companies and intelligence personnel often intersected with locations frequented by the Saudis.

The dots were apparently never connected by investigators. Police records in New Jersey and New York where the men were held have disappeared and FBI interrogation reports are inaccessible. Media coverage of the case also died, though the five were referred to in the press as the “dancing Israelis” and by some, more disparagingly, as the “dancing Shlomos.”

Inevitably, the George W. Bush White House intervened. After 71 days in detention, the five Israelis were inexplicably released from prison, put on a plane, and deported. One should also recall that when the news of 9/11 reached Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pleased, saying that “It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” It will “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.” And, of course, it was conveniently attributable to Israel’s enemies.

The possible role of Israel in 9/11 was first explored in book form in 2003 by Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo in his The Terror Enigma, a short book focusing on Israeli spying and inconsistencies in the narrative that bore the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection.”

Currently, the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 has inspired some others to take another look at the possible Israeli role. Ron Unz has recently completed an exhaustive examination of the evidence. He observes that 9/11 and its aftermath have shaped “the last two decades, greatly changing the daily lives and liberties of most ordinary Americans.” He asks “What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world’s sole superpower? And how were they possibly able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the U.S. government itself?”

Ron Unz answers his question, concluding that there is “a strong, perhaps even overwhelming case that the Israeli Mossad together with its American collaborators played the central role” in the attack. His argument is based on the noted inconsistencies in the standard narrative, plus an examination of the history of Israeli false flag and mass terrorism attacks. It also includes new information gleaned from Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s recent book Rise and Kill First: the Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.

To a certain extent, Unz relies on a detailed investigative article written by French journalist Laurent Guyenot in 2018 as well as on an argument made by an ex-Marine and former instructor at the U.S. Army War College Alan Sabrosky in an article where he records how “Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the ‘tactics of mistake.’ This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage. This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others. I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the U.S. Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the ‘catalytic event’ they needed and craved to take the U.S. to war on Israel’s behalf…”

Economist and author Paul Craig Roberts has also been motivated by the anniversary to review the evidence and concludes

“Circumstantial evidence suggests that 9/11 was a scheme of George W. Bush regime neoconservative officials allied with vice president Dick Cheney and Israel to create a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ that would generate support on the part of the American people and Washington’s European allies for a Middle Eastern ‘war on terror’ whose real purpose was to destroy Israel’s enemies in the interest of Greater Israel… This is the most plausible explanation, but, if true, it is not one that the U.S. and Israeli governments would ever acknowledge. Consequently, we are stuck with an official explanation long championed by the presstitutes that no one believes.”

Yes, an implausible explanation that no one really believes for the greatest national security disaster in America’s twenty-first century. And Israel gets yet another pass.

*

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.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Throughout the previous year, governments and corporations have crushed the exercise of our human rights, constitutional rights, and civil liberties on a massive scale.  The scope of the violations integral to the assault on people’s rights is now being rapidly extended into the imposition of government-sanctioned vaccine mandates. Working people are now being put squarely in the line of fire. They are facing ultimatums from employers that they will lose their jobs if they do not accept  the injection into their persons of dangerous medical products. 

In the UK, EU and UK, COVID jabs are already confirmed to have injured many millions and, at the very least, to have killed tens of thousands. The real numbers are probably much larger. Studies have pointed to the likelihood that the scale of deaths and disabilities inflicted by the COVID clot shots are far in excess of the officially-reported figures. See this.

The vaccine mandates are targeting legions of blue-collar tradespersons, service providers, and white collar professionals including professors, doctors, and government administrators.

If enforced, vaccine mandates will form the basis of broader systems of vaccine passports meant to govern the movements, interactions, certifications as well as the entry of people into all manner of establishments, domestically and internationally. If realized, this new mechanism would bring about a fundamental remaking of our societies along decidedly authoritarian lines.

Following in the wake of the enormous damage done by the reckless and nonsensical lockdowns, governments have made themselves pushers of dangerous drugs in the form of COVID jabs known to do way more harm than good. See this.

To employ a sports metaphor, let’s assume that the imposition of masking, lockdowns, and social distancing represents a football field of lost territory for the exercise of our fundamental freedoms. The enforcement of vaccine mandates, which make continued employment of workers contingent upon their receiving COVID jabs, expands the scale of the theft of our rights and freedoms by a huge order of magnitude. Imagine losing the equivalent of say about 100 more football fields of exerciseable liberty to the predators seeking to diminish and subordinate us.

Authorities are seeking to impose vaccine mandates on both public sector and private sector workers. Ultimately, however, it is governments that are empowering the leadership of the corporate world to engage in the imposition of injections as a major condition of employment.  The same governments that can empower vaccine mandates also retain the imperative to outlaw the practice of forcing workers to take unwanted jabs in order to retain employment.

The forcing of vaccines on people who depend on jobs for their livelihoods amounts to an assault on individual rights unlike anything we have seen to date. It sets many precedents that change the legal framework for all sorts of human relations inside and outside the workplace.

Moreover the adoption of vaccine mandates implies much more than agreeing to take the current set of COVID jabs. Rather it marks the beginning of an agreement to accept cradle-to-grave programs of regular vaccines. The cumulative effect of these programs will basically be to annihilate the natural immunity of those receiving the shots. Their inherited immunity will be replaced by artificial immunity, engineered to generate rich streams of profit that will flow to the indemnified vaccine manufacturers.

The consequences of all this are enormous. For example, what comes next if it is established that governments and corporations have a legitimate legal imperative to coerce people to accept the injection of toxic substances into their bloodstreams? How could it be that activities once seen as basic rights of citizenship could become privileges reserved for those who subordinate themselves to rule of Big Pharma and its vassal states?

If governments and corporations together with their domination of a complicit media can claim the protections of law to force killer vaccines on us, then what else can’t they do? Some of the most oppressive forces in society will have gained vast new powers to invade our most personal space of all, our very bodies. Hence it is that the successful imposition of vaccine mandates would obliterate the legal and political ground supporting many different categories of individual rights.

The billionaires and their banker friends currently pulling the strings of this manufactured viral crisis are being presented with many green lights to advance a wide array of their nefarious schemes to tighten their control over humanity. The attacks on our social fabric include efforts to eliminate the middle class, to reduce the size of the human population and to put the survivors of the murderous culling into a perpetual state of dispossessed servitude.

There is something diabolical about any plan to create a new set of criteria and procedures that cut masses of workers and their dependents off from paychecks and the necessities they buy. In a capitalist society this form of economic punishment has dire consequences. This threat, therefore, ranks near the top level of coercive measures being ushered into place as we enter the autumn of 2021.

The previous nine months have been a time of unprecedented vaccination hucksterism. Deceptive and glitzy advertising campaigns were mounted to cajole citizens into taking the COVID jabs voluntarily in spite of the reality that the process was a medical experiment lacking full regulatory approval. To the ad campaigns were added many gimmicky incentives such as free beers, joints, lap dances, lottery tickets, and money.

Now the stick is replacing the carrot. People are being told that only by taking the vaccine can they retain jobs and participate in society. The forms of prohibited activity for the so-called unvaccinated might include bans on travel, education, as well as the obtaining of various forms of licenses and certification. The prohibited realm reserved solely for the vaccinated might include various forms of sporting, cultural, dining, and recreational events and facilities.

The propaganda machine is now being primed up to prepare the majority population for this outcome. The minds of the vaccinated are being poisoned to hate the “unvaccinated, or, worse yet, the “anti-vaxxers.” The alleged crime of COVID jab resisters is their failure to conduct themselves in a socially responsible fashion. On the basis of this form of psychological warfare, conditions are being created to justify the creation of a new class of lepers and untouchables. The old institution of South African apartheid and the segregationist Jim Crowe laws in the American South are being dusted off and prepared for a new kind of outcast.

Workers and Their Unions Face Off in the Manufactured COVID Crisis

New forms of panic are reverberating through society as people come to the realization that the manufactured COVID crisis is taking on many new and menacing dimensions. Workers are being put in a vice of opposing pressures. Many of them are being instructed that they have to make a choice between being stabbed with potentially lethal and injurious clot shots or they must accept the termination of their jobs and livelihoods.

This awakening of people to heretofore hidden realities is putting a sudden spotlight on the often-compromised leadership of labour unions. In Canada the crisis is also drawing attention to the moribund state of social democracy. Canada’s New Democratic Party has betrayed its founding principles in its drift towards the fascistic tendencies of Blairite neoliberalism.

A former coal miner, Richard Trumka was until recently the leader of the 12 million member strong AFL-CIO, the largest association of organized workers in North America. In June Trumka declared,

For working people getting vaccinated for COVID-19 is a matter of life and death. The battle against Covid-19 cannot be won without working people. And now we have the best possible tool to protect ourselves, to protect our loved ones, and to protect everyone we proudly and successfully serve. And that’s the COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccines are safe and very effective, totally free and widely available……When we get the shot together we show our solidarity. So let’s roll up our sleeves. Let’s get vaccinated. And then let’s get back to healing and rebuilding this country.

A month after he made this video, Trumka died of a heart attack that may have resulted from blood clots engendered by the COVID 19 injections.

There are, of course, many individual workers who disagree with the position of their union leaders on vaccine mandates and related matters. A popular position among union members is that there should be freedom of choice rather than coercion applied in the administration of COVID jabs.

The workers who tend to be most wary of the health effects of the controversial vaccines include police, firefighters, EMS workers and some nurses. Those who are averse to taking COVID shots are starting to join together with a larger array of dissidents who object to vaccine mandates. Many of those who have been vaccinated do not extend their personal choices to granting permission to impose mandatory vaccines.

In Canada the emerging dissident movement of employed people against mandatory injections goes by the name, Frontline Workers for Freedom. Many of those police, firefighters, and EMS workers publicly demonstrating their commitment to freedom of choice do not have the backing of their unions.

See this, this and this.

While the big nurses’ unions tend to go along with the other big unions, including the teachers’ unions, the nursing profession is full of internal division and even disgust in some circles. The disgust is derived from the ineptitude shown by some health authorities in their handling of the manufactured COVID crisis. A significant nexus for the dissenting nurses is Canadian Frontline Nurses. See this.

The widespread sense among many nurses is that they are being betrayed and demeaned by their employers. The consequential despair of many nurses is causing them to quit in droves. Now looming on the immediate horizon is a further large-scale removal of the remaining nurses if officials carry out their threats to enforce mandatory vaccines.

Much of the growing disarray in health care facilities is being caused by the growing exodus of health care workers combined with the widespread misrepresentation of those who head to hospitals for vaccine injuries. Hospitals often have many available beds but lack sufficient health care workers to fully service the available facilities. Surgeries are often postponed with the false message that everything can be blamed on the irresponsible behavior of the so-called “unvaccinated.”

Almost every professional group and association has been thrown into a chaotic state by the manufactured COVID crisis. Teachers are in crisis. Honest journalists are rebelling against the imposed regime of dishonesty in reporting. Judges and prosecutors are starting to see that all agencies of law enforcement are losing credibility in the eyes of the public. The list goes on and on.

One cannot help wondering if the chaotic breakdown underway isn’t being instigated from above as part of a plan to ruin public services, but especially in the fields of health care and education. Might this ruination be a prelude to the thoroughgoing privatization of anything that remains of government-supported social services? Might the privatization of even fire fighting agencies be on the table?

The unions of university professors have by and large been in lockstep with the position of the AFL-CIO leadership. As an example, let’s consider the position of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, CAUT. CAUT, it seems, is acting pretty much on the basis of the assumption that governments and the mainstream media are acting in good faith to protect the health of the general public.

As a coalition of all the university faculty associations in Canada, CAUT has adopted a very superficial understanding of the manufactured COVID crisis. David Robinson, CAUT’s Executive Director, has stated,

The best available science tells us that vaccines are effective in reducing transmission and the severity of infection, that very high vaccination rates are required to achieve herd immunity, and that the growing community threat from the Delta variant of the virus is best managed by widespread vaccination. 

See this.

On the shakey basis of these glib assumptions, CAUT officials seem prepared to accept the inherently coercive nature of vaccine mandates. Robinson tries to tiptoe around this issue by stipulating that vaccine mandates are acceptable in universities so long as “human rights accommodations are followed.”

When addressing the human rights of those who quite reasonably refuse to accept COVID jabs, CAUT suggests that “the unvaccinated can be accommodated through masking, physical distancing, or working or studying from home” as long as “all legal privacy issues are fully respected.”

CAUT seems to be playing into the hands of those that envisage some sort of leper colonies for the unvaccinated. No real room is being left for those who seek to express their human rights, safe from the incursions of injections coercively enforced on entire groups of people without their informed consent. Those who are properly informed generally opt against taking part in the huge medical experiment currently running contrary to the legal requirements of the Nuremberg Code. See this.

As it presently stands, therefore, a key requirement to attend many universities is to take the COVID jabs. By doing so, students, faculty members and staff show a willingness to put aside their own critical thought as well as the conclusions they derive from their own independent research.  In other words, they must agree to go along with a program of administrative dictate no matter how flawed the reasoning coming from power-serving administrators.

CAUT’s position on vaccine policy is quite consistent with the waning influence and integrity of this ossified organization in decline. CAUT’s compromised position on mandatory vaccines is consistent with its inadequate protection of academic freedom. The responsibility to protect academic freedom constitutes the main reason for CAUT’s existence in the first place. CAUT is duty bound to safeguard academic freedom as its highest priority.

From my own work experience in collaborating with CAUT officials, I can say the organization gives lip service to the goal of protecting academic freedom but it is unwilling to act assertively in controversial cases. CAUT’s failure to do its job is perhaps reflected in the dearth of assertive faculty members at Canadian universities willing to voice controversial positions on the real character of the manufactured COVID crisis

Trade Unions and Prosperity Now and in the Past

What is to be made of the concerted push to institute vaccine mandates, vaccine passports and medical apartheid within the framework of burgeoning surveillance states? This push is creating the basis for much future controversy and division within the realm of trade unionism and labour relations. This development is not surprising. Labour relations have been an area of great contestation throughout major conflicts of many different kinds.

A few snapshots from history might present a small panorama of the historical background of trade unionism as it applies to the current situation. I think of the Ford Motor Company factories in the Detroit area in the 1930s when Henry Ford hired anti-Soviet Ukrainian union busters to keep out organized labour. I think of the decades following World War II when Roosevelt’s New Deal was applied in a way that caused increased wealth and benefits to flow towards unionized workers. Many of them were able to enter the middle class on the basis of good factory jobs.

I think of the last three decades when North American plutocrats undermined trade unionism on this continent by transferring whole industrial complexes to China. The other side of the massive growth in manufacturing in China resulted in a form of deindustrialization throughout North America. Rust belts replaced thriving manufacturing centers.

Millions of jobs were thus ceded away. Domestic workers were ruthlessly deplatformed from well-paid positions leaving whole communities as well as the main elements of the trade union movement seriously crippled. Millions of victims of the process suffered many severe consequences becoming the so-called Deplorables inclined to vote for Donald Trump.

This history has set the framework of the present crisis that exists in large measure because of the propensity of many folks who see themselves as Left Progressives to accept the manufactured COVID crisis at face value. For this constituency, the proclaimed crusade to fight and destroy COVID represents a means of empowering government authorities to act on behalf of what they wrongly assume is the collective good.

In recent times most of the Left is especially guilty of betraying many of its core principles as it sides with Wall Street, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Media and big corporate networks of many kinds. Those who operate these enterprises from the towering heights of socialism for the very rich have many of their own agendas. The agendas include demolishing the last remnants of the welfare state.

As Todd Gitlin predicted in 1996 in the Twilight of Common Dreams, the Left began to falter when it abandoned its heritage of emphasis on big universal themes like the oppressive orientation of the ruling class towards the working class. In the place of this inclusive approach, the Left became a balkanized realm obsessed with diversity and the splintered perspectives emanating from massive engagements with identity politics. Little by little the conditions evolved to the point that characterizations of any group could only come from members of that group.

Now we are facing an onslaught of booster shots, vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. If these massive initiatives are allowed to go forward, what comes next? Will those who seek to escape the penetration of coercively-injected COVID stabs subsequently find themselves in internment camps for their re-education?

When will those woke individuals who see themselves as Left Progressives actually wake up to what is going on? What would it take for them to say, enough is enough? Can the trade union movement in its diminished state reinvent itself? Can it disentangle itself from the machinations of a ruling class intent on expressing its conquistadorial impulses by ruthlessly exploiting its own manufacturing of the COVID 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.

Dr. Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense