Our Asia Pacific Website

November 27th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Our Asia Pacific Website

Subscribe to the Global Research Newsletter

November 6th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Subscribe to the Global Research Newsletter

Nuestro sitio en español: Globalizacion.ca

November 5th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Nuestro sitio en español: Globalizacion.ca

Pour Accéder à la Version Mobile de Mondialisation.ca

August 14th, 2017 by Global Research News

Nous faisons face présentement à une problème technique.

Pour accéder à la version mobile de mondialisation.ca, cliquez sur le Menu principal de Globalresearch.ca (version mobile), (en haut à gauche) et ensuite cliquez sur Mondialisation.ca.


A partir de la semaine prochaine le problème technique devrait être résolu.

Amitiés à tous nos lecteurs


  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Pour Accéder à la Version Mobile de Mondialisation.ca

Today’s Most Popular Stories on Global Research

August 22nd, 2015 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Today’s Most Popular Stories on Global Research

GR’s Ukraine Report: 800+ articles

August 22nd, 2015 by Global Research News

Fighting Lies and Searching for Truths

July 19th, 2015 by Global Research

The world is globalizing and information has become more accessible to more people than ever before. We are, indeed, in unprecedented times, and we face unprecedented challenges.

The aims of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research are to battle the tidal waves of misinformation and propaganda washing our minds on a daily basis. We have separated ourselves from the corporate controlled mainstream news, whose only objective is to serve their corporate masters. We take no assistance from the major foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, and MacArthur, who act as patrons (and thus pacifiers) of the alternative and critical voices challenging the forces of globalization.

We do this in order to remain an independent voice, challenging all that needs to be challenged and exposing all that remains in the dark. Bringing light to a dimly lit world is no easy task, and though the aim and method is “independence,” we are, in fact, entirely dependent upon YOU, our readers. Without your support, we cannot continue our operations nor expand our horizons and opportunities. Global Research is indebted to our readers, and we are here for you and because of you. If you would like Global Research to continue and to grow, we need your support now more than ever.

By making a donation  to Global Research, you  assist journalists, researchers and contributors who have either lost their jobs with the mainstream media or who have been excluded from employment opportunities as professional journalists for their pledge to the truth. We send our thanks to all who have contributed so far by donating or becoming a member!

The mainstream media is owned by bankers and corporate kingpins. Not only that, but it has been historically and presently infiltrated by covert government agencies, seeking to deceive and propagandize their agendas. The CIA has long had associations with major mainstream news publications. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.”

At Global Research, we seek to not only expose and criticize the larger picture, but to point the finger at the media, itself, and examine who is lying, why they lie, and how they get away with it.

To continue in our endeavours, we need our readers to continue in their support.

One important and helpful thing that all of our readers can do is to help spread our name and information by “sharing and  “liking” our Facebook page here. We post articles daily that will appear in your news feed so that you don’t have to come to us, we can bring our information straight to you. “Like” our page and recommend us to your friends. Every bit helps! You can also subscribe to our RSS feed

You can also support us by continuing to send us your much needed donations which allow us to continue our day-to-day operations and help us expand our scope and content.

Supporting Global Research is supporting the cause of truth and the fight against media disinformation.

Thank you.

The Global Research Team


For online donations, please click below:



To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

PO Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest,

Montreal, QC, H2Y 4A7

For payment by fax, please print the credit card fax authorization form and fax your order and credit card details to Global Research at 514 656 5294

You can also support us by purchasing books from our store! Click to browse our titles.

Global Research Articles on the Environment

December 22nd, 2014 by Global Research News

Analysis on Climate Change and Global Warming. 100+ GR Articles

December 9th, 2014 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Analysis on Climate Change and Global Warming. 100+ GR Articles

Global Research’s Ukraine Report

November 21st, 2014 by Global Research News

Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview remains to be confirmed. It is available in recognized electronic news archives including the BBC. Its authenticity has not been questioned.  

The interview tends to demystify the Osama bin Laden persona.

Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He focusses on CIA support to the narcotics trade.

He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of  the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview.

It is our hope that the text of this interview, published on 28 September 2001 barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

This interview is published for informational purposes only. GR does not in any way endorse the statements in this interview.

Michel  Chossudovsky, September 9, 2014

Full text of September 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

Ummat (in Urdu)

translated from Urdu

Karachi, 28 September 2001, pp. 1 and 7.

Ummat’s introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”.

Following is the interview in full detail:

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims .

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received .

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?

Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want?

Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad.

We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah jurisprudence for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin the commander of the faithful Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?

Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.

Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa’idah accounts by the US?

Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path.

These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are the same Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

Copyright Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Order Directly from Global Research


America’s “War on Terrorism”

by Michel

Click to Get the Latest Global Research Articles

December 23rd, 2013 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Click to Get the Latest Global Research Articles

Click for Latest Global Research News

November 22nd, 2013 by Global Research News

Today’s Most Popular Stories

October 15th, 2013 by Global Research News

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”


LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

In fact, ABC News reported in their article, “Al Qaeda Terror Group: We ‘Benefit From’ Libyan Weapons,” that:

A leading member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group indicated the organization may have acquired some of the thousands of powerful weapons that went missing in the chaos of the Libyan uprising, stoking long-held fears of Western officials.”We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI Wednesday. “As for our benefiting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

French involvement may drive AQIM and its affiliates out of northern Mali, but they are almost sure to end up in Algeria, most likely by design.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa: US Covert Support to Al Qaeda in Northern Mali, France “Comes to the Rescue”

Latest Global Research Articles. Subscribe to GR’s RSS Feed

December 30th, 2012 by Global Research News

  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Latest Global Research Articles. Subscribe to GR’s RSS Feed

Salafism and the CIA: Destabilizing the Russian Federation?

September 14th, 2012 by F. William Engdahl

Part I: Syria comes to the Russian Caucasus

On August 28 Sheikh Said Afandi, acknowledged spiritual leader of the Autonomous Russian Republic of Dagestan, was assassinated. A jihadist female suicide bomber managed to enter his house and detonate an explosive device.

The murder target had been carefully selected. Sheikh Afandi, a seventy-five-year old Sufi Muslim leader, had played the critical role in attempting to bring about reconciliation in Dagestan between jihadist Salafi Sunni Muslims and other factions, many of whom in Dagestan see themselves as followers of Sufi. With no replacement of his moral stature and respect visible, authorities fear possible outbreak of religious war in the tiny Russian autonomous republic.[1]

The police reported that the assassin was an ethnic Russian woman who had converted to Islam and was linked to an Islamic fundamentalist or Salafist insurgency against Russia and regional governments loyal to Moscow in the autonomous republics and across the volatile Muslim-populated North Caucasus region.

Ethnic Muslim populations in this region of Russia and of the former Soviet Union, including Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and into China’s Xinjiang Province, have been the target of various US and NATO intelligence operations since the Cold War era ended in 1990. Washington sees manipulation of Muslim groups as the vehicle to bring uncontrollable chaos to Russia and Central Asia. It’s being carried out by some of the same organizations engaged in creating chaos and destruction inside Syria against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. In a real sense, as Russian security services clearly understand, if they don’t succeed in stopping the Jihadists insurgency in Syria, it will come home to them via the Caucasus.

The latest Salafist murders of Sufi and other moderate Muslim leaders in the Caucasus are apparently part of what is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most dangerous US intelligence operation ever—playing globally with Muslim fundamentalism.

Previously US and allied intelligence services had played fast and loose with religious organizations or beliefs in one or another country. What makes the present situation particularly dangerous—notably since the decision in Washington to unleash the misnamed Arab Spring upheavals that began in Tunisia late 2010, spreading like a brushfire across the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan across Central Asia to Morocco—is the incalculable wave upon wave of killing, hatreds, destruction of entire cultures that Washington has unleashed in the name of that elusive dream named “democracy.” They do this using alleged Al-Qaeda groups, Saudi Salafists or Wahhabites, or using disciples of Turkey’s Fethullah Gülen Movement to ignite fires of religious hatred within Islam and against other faiths that could take decades to extinguish. It could easily spill over into a new World War.

Fundamentalism comes to Caucasus

Following the dissolution of the USSR, radical Afghanistani Mujahadeen, Islamists from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, Pakistan and other Islamic countries flooded into the Muslim regions of the former USSR. One of the best-organized of these was the Gülen Movement of Fethullah Gülen, leader of a global network of Islamic schools and reported to be the major policy influence on Turkey’s Erdogan AKP party.

Gülen was quick to establish The International Dagestani-Turkish College in Dagestan. During the chaotic days after the Soviet collapse, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation officially registered and permitted unfettered activity for a variety of Islamic foundations and organizations. These included the League of the Islamic World, the World Muslim Youth Assembly, the reportedly Al-Qaeda friendly Saudi foundation ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim.’ The blacklist also included Al-Haramein a Saudi foundation reported tied to Al-Qaeda, and IHH, [2] a Turkish organization banned in Germany, that allegedly raised funds for jihadi fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, and was charged by French intelligence of ties to Al Qaeda.[3] Many of these charities were covers for fundamentalist Salafists with their own special agenda.

As many of the foreign Islamists in Chechnya and Dagestan were found involved in fomenting the regional unrest and civil war, Russian authorities withdrew permission of most to run schools and institutions. Throughout the North Caucasus at the time of the Chechyn war in the late 1990’s, there were more than two dozen Islamic institutes, some 200 madrassas and numerous maktabas (Koranic study schools) present at almost all mosques.

The International Dagestani-Turkish College was one that was forced to close its doors in Dagestan. The College was run by the Fethullah Gülen organization.[4]

At the point of the Russian crackdown on the spread of Salafist teaching inside Russia at the end of the 1990’s, there was an exodus of hundreds of young Dagestani and Chechyn Muslim students to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places in The Middle east, reportedly to receive training with the Gülen movement and various Saudi-financed organizations, including Salafists. [5] It is believed in Russia that the students trained by Gülen supporters or Saudi and other Salafist fundamentalist centers then were sent back to Dagestan and the North Caucasus to spread their radical strain of Islam.

By 2005 the situation in the Caucasus was so influenced by this Salafist intervention that the Chechen Salafist, Doku Umarov, cited by the UN Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda,[6] unilaterally declared creation of what he called the Caucasus Emirate, announcing he planned to establish an Islamic state under Sharia law encompassing the entire North Caucasus region including Dagestan. He modestly proclaimed himself Emir of the Caucasus Emirate. [7]

*  *  *

WWIII Scenario

*  *  *


Part II: Salafism at war with Sufi tradition

Salafism, known in Saudi Arabia as Wahhabism, is a fundamentalist strain of Islam which drew world attention and became notorious in March 2001 just weeks before the attacks of September 11. That was when the Salafist Taliban government in Afghanistan willfully dynamited and destroyed the historic gigantic Buddhas of Bamiyan on the ancient Silk Road, religious statues dating from the 6th Century. The Taliban Salafist leaders also banned as “un-islamic” all forms of imagery, music and sports, including television, in accordance with what they considered a strict interpretation of Sharia.

Afghani sources reported that the order to destroy the Buddhas was made by Saudi-born jihadist Wahhabite, Osama bin Laden, who ultimately convinced Mullah Omar, Taliban supreme leader at the time to execute the act.[8]

Before and…After Salafist Taliban …

While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn as idolatry any non-traditional forms of worship. They also call for the establishment of Islamic political rule and strict Sharia law. Sufism is home to the great spiritual and musical heritage of Islam, said by Islamic scholars to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam, going back centuries.

As one Sufi scholar described the core of Sufism, “While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and will become close to God in Paradise–after death and the ‘Final Judgment’– Sufis believe as well that it is possible to become close to God and to experience this closeness–while one is alive. Furthermore, the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, ‘I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known.’ Hence for the Sufis there is already a momentum, a continuous attraction on their hearts exerted by God, pulling them, in love, towards God.” [9]

The mystical Islamic current of Sufism and its striving to become close to or one with God is in stark contrast to the Jihadist Salafi or Wahhabi current that is armed with deadly weapons, preaches a false doctrine of jihad, and a perverse sense of martyrdom, committing countless acts of violence. Little wonder that the victims of Salafist Jihads are mostly other pacific forms of Islam including most especially Sufis.

The respected seventy-five year old Afandi had publicly denounced Salafist Islamic fundamentalism. His murder followed a July 19 coordinated attack on two high-ranking muftis in the Russian Volga Republic of Tatarstan. Both victims were state-approved religious leaders who had attacked radical Islam. This latest round of murders opens a new front in the Salafist war against Russia, namely attacks on moderate Sufi Muslim leaders.

Whether or not Dagestan now descends into internal religious civil war that then spreads across the geopolitically sensitive Russian Caucasus is not yet certain. What is almost certain is that the same circles who have been feeding violence and terror inside Syria against the regime of Alawite President Bashar al-Assad are behind the killing of Sheikh Afandi as well as sparking related acts of terror or unrest across Russia’s Muslim-populated Caucasus. In a very real sense it represents Russia’s nightmare scenario of “Syria coming to Russia.” It demonstrates dramatically why Putin has made such a determined effort to stop a descent into a murderous hell in Syria.

Salafism and the CIA

The existence of the so-called jihadist Salafi brand of Islam in Dagestan is quite recent. It has also been deliberately imported. Salafism is sometimes also called the name of the older Saudi-centered Wahhabism. Wahhabism is a minority originally-Bedouin form of the faith originating within Islam, dominant in Saudi Arabia since the 1700’s.

Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism give the following description of Saudi conditions under the rigid Wahhabi brand of Islam:

Women living under Saudi rule must wear the abaya, or total body cloak, and niqab, the face veil; they have limited opportunities for schooling and careers; they are prohibited from driving vehicles; are banned from social contact with men not relatives, and all personal activity must be supervised including opening bank accounts, by a male family member or “guardian.” These Wahhabi rules are enforced by a mutawiyin, or morals militia, also known as “the religious police,” officially designated the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) who patrol Saudi cities, armed with leather-covered sticks which they freely used against those they considered wayward. They raid homes looking for alcohol and drugs, and harassed non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as believers in other faiths.” [10]

It’s widely reported that the obscenely opulent and morally-perhaps-not-entirely-of- the-highest-standards Saudi Royal Family made a Faustian deal with Wahhabite leaders. The deal supposedly, was that the Wahhabists are free to export their fanatical brand of Islam around to the Islamic populations of the world in return for agreeing to leave the Saudi Royals alone.[11] There are, however, other dark and dirty spoons stirring the Wahhabite-Salafist Saudi stew.

Little known is the fact that the present form of aggressive Saudi Wahhabism, in reality a kind of fusion between imported jihadi Salafists from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabites. Leading Salafist members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were introduced into the Saudi Kingdom in the 1950’s by the CIA in a complex series of events, when Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood following an assassination attempt. By the 1960’s an influx of Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia fleeing Nasserite repression, had filled many of the leading teaching posts in Saudi religious schools. One student there was a young well-to-do Saudi, Osama bin Laden.  [12]

During the Third Reich, Hitler Germany had supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the British in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Marc Erikson describes the Nazi roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood thus:

…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and ’40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and “supreme guide” Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini.[13]

After the defeat of Germany, British Intelligence moved in to take over control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, for financial and other reasons, the British decided to hand their assets within the Muslim Brotherhood over to their CIA colleagues in the 1950s. [14]

According to former US Justice Department Nazi researcher John Loftus,  “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Dr Abdullah Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” [15]

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not,” Loftus continues. “They think that Islam–the Saudi version of Islam–is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia–that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” [16]

Loftus identified the significance of what today is emerging from the shadows to take over Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, and the so-called Syrian National Council, dominated in reality by the Muslim Brotherhood and publicly led by the more “politically correct” or presentable likes of Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, foreign affairs spokesman for the SNC was twice an invited guest at the Bilderberg elite gathering, latest in Chantilly, Virginia earlier this year.[17]

The most bizarre and alarming feature of the US-financed  regime changes set into motion in 2010, which have led to the destruction of the secular Arab regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muhammar Qaddafi in Libya, and the secular regime of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, and which have wreaked savage destruction across the Middle East, especially in the past eighteen months in Syria, is the pattern of emerging power grabs by representatives of the murky Salafist Muslim Brotherhood.

By informed accounts, a Saudi-financed Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood dominates the members of the exile Syrian National Council that is backed by the US State Department’s Secretary Clinton and by Hollande’s France. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is tied, not surprisingly to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of President Mohammed Morsi who recently in a meeting of the Non-Aligned in Iran called openly for the removal of Syria’s Assad, a logical step if his Muslim Brothers in the present Syrian National Council are to take the reins of power. The Saudis are also rumored to have financed the ascent to power in Tunisia of the governing Islamist Ennahda Party,[18] and are documented to be financing the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council against President Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Part III: Morsi’s Reign of Salafi Terror

Indicative of the true agenda of this Muslim Brotherhood and related jihadists today is the fact that once they have power, they drop the veil of moderation and reconciliation and reveal their violently intolerant roots. This is visible in Egypt today under Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.

Unreported in mainstream Western media to date are alarming direct reports from Christian missionary organizations in Egypt that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood has already begun to drop the veil of “moderation and conciliation” and show its brutal totalitarian Salafist colors, much as Khomeini’s radical Sharia forces did in Iran after taking control in 1979-81.

In a letter distributed by the Christian Aid Mission (CAM), a Christian Egyptian missionary wrote that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “announced they would destroy the country if Morsi didn’t win, but they also said they will take revenge from all those who voted for [his opponent Ahmed] Shafiq, especially the Christians as they are sure we did vote for Shafiq. Yesterday they began by killing two believers in el Sharqiya because of this,” the missionary added, speaking on condition of anonymity.[20]

This report came only weeks after Egyptian State TV (under Morsi’s control) showed ghastly video footage of a convert from Islam to Christianity being murdered by Muslims. The footage showed a young man being held down by masked men with a knife to his throat. As one man was heard chanting Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity, another man holding the knife to the Christian convert’s throat began to cut, slowly severing the head amid cries of “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”), according to transcripts. In the letter, the Egyptian missionary leader added that, “soon after Morsi won, Christians in upper Egypt were forcibly prevented from going to churches.” Many Muslims, the letter claimed, “also began to speak to women in the streets that they had to wear Islamic clothing including the head covering. They act as if they got the country for their own, it’s theirs now.” [21]

Already in 2011 Morsi’s Salafist followers began attacking and destroying Sufi mosques across Egypt. According to the authoritative newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm (Today’s Egyptian), 16 historic mosques in Alexandria belonging to Sufi orders have been marked for destruction by so-called ‘Salafis’. Alexandria has 40 mosques associated with Sufis, and is the headquarters for 36 Sufi groups. Half a million Sufis live in the city, out of a municipal total of four million people. Aggression against the Sufis in Egypt has included a raid on Alexandria’s most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu’l Abbas.[22]

Notably, the so-called “democratically elected” regime in Libya following the toppling of Mohamar Qaddafi by NATO bombs in 2011, has also been zealous in destroying Sufi mosques and places of worhip. In August this year, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova expressed “grave concern” at the destruction by Islamic Jihadists of Sufi sites in Zliten, Misrata and Tripoli and urged perpetrators to “cease the destruction immediately.” [23] Under behind-the-scenes machinations the Libyan government is dominated by Jihadists and by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Tunisia and Egypt. [24]

The explosive cocktail of violence inherent in allowing the rise to power of Salafist Islamists across the Middle East was clear to see, symbolically enough on the night of September 11,th when a mob of angry supporters of the fanatical Salafist group, Ansar Al-Sharia, murdered the US Ambassador to Libya and three US diplomats, burning the US Consulate in Bengazi to the ground in protest over a YouTube release of a film by an American filmmaker showing the Prophet Mohammed indulging in multiple sex affairs and casting doubt on his role as God’s messenger. Ironically that US Ambassador had played a key role in toppling Qaddafi and opening the door to the Salafist takeover in Libya. At the same time angry mobs of thousands of Salafists surrounded the US Embassy in Cairo in protest to the US film. [25]

Ansar Al-Sharia (“Partisans of Islamic law” in Arabic) reportedly is a spinoff of Al-Qaeda and claims organizations across the Middle East from Yemen to Tunisia to Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ansar al-Sharia says it is reproducing the model of Sharia or strict Islamic law espoused by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq. The core of the group are jihadists who came out of an “Islamic state”, either in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, or among jihadists in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003.[26]

The deliberate detonation now of a new round of Salafist fundamentalist Jihad terror inside Muslim regions of the Russian Caucasus is exquisitely timed politically to put maximum pressure at home on the government of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Putin and the Russian Government are the strongest and most essential backer of the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and for Russia as well the maintenance of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base at Syria’s Tartus port is vital strategically. At the same time, Obama’s sly message to Medvedev to wait until Obama’s re-election to evaluate US intent towards Russia and Putin’s cryptic recent comment that a compromise with a re-elected President Obama might be possible, but not with a President Romney, [27] indicate that the Washington “stick-and-carrot” or hard cop-soft cop tactics with Moscow might tempt Russia to sacrifice major geopolitical alliances, perhaps even that special close and recent geopolitical alliance with China.[28] Were that to happen, the World might witness a “reset” in US-Russian relations with catastrophic consequences for world peace.

F. William Engdahl*  is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order


[1] Dan Peleschuk, Sheikh Murdered Over Religious Split Say Analysts, RIA Novosti, August 30, 2012, accessed in


[2] Mairbek  Vatchagaev, The Kremlin’s War on Islamic Education in the North Caucasus, North Caucasus Analysis Volume: 7 Issue: 34, accessed in http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3334

[3] Iason Athanasiadis, Targeted by Israeli raid: Who is the IHH?, The Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2010, accessed in http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0601/Targeted-by-Israeli-raid-Who-is-the-IHH.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mairbek Vatchagaev, op. cit.

[6] UN Security Council, QI.U.290.11. DOKU KHAMATOVICH UMAROV, 10 March 2011, accessed in http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/NSQI29011E.shtml. The UN statement reads: “Doku Khamatovich Umarov was listed on 10 March 2011 pursuant to paragraph 2 of resolution 1904 (2009) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of”, “recruiting for”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” and “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” the Islamic Jihad Group (QE.I.119.05), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (QE.I.10.01), Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM) (QE.R.100.03) and Emarat Kavkaz (QE.E.131.11).”

[7] Tom Jones, Czech NGO rejects Russian reports of link to alleged Islamist terrorists al-Qaeda, May 10, 2011, accessed in http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/czech-ngo-rejects-russian-reports-link-alleged-islamist-terrorists-al-qaeda?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=enprofil&utm_campaign=twennews.

[8] The Times of India, Laden ordered Bamyan Buddha destruction, The Times of India, March 28, 2006.

[9] Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism — Sufis — Sufi Orders:

[10] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, Center for Islamic Pluralism, May 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2040/wahhabi-internal-contradictions-as-saudi-arabia

[11] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, May 21, 2012, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2040/wahhabi-internal-contradictions-as-saudi-arabia.

[12] Robert Duncan, Islamic Terrorisms Links to Nazi Fascism, AINA, July 5, 2007, accessed in http://www.aina.org/news/2007070595517.htm.

[13] Marc Erikson, Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 2), AsiaTimes.Online, November 8, 2002, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html.

[14] Ibid.

[15] John Loftus, The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda,  Jewish Community News, October 11, 2006, accessed in http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/loftus101106.htm

[16] Ibid.

[17] Charlie Skelton, The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?: The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look …, London Guardian, 12 July 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking.

[18] Aidan Lewis, Profile: Tunisia’s Ennahda Party, BBC News, 25 October 2011, accessed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15442859.

[19] Hassan Hassan, Syrians are torn between a despotic regime and a stagnant opposition: The Muslim Brotherhood’s perceived monopoly over the Syrian National Council has created an opposition stalemate, The Guardian, UK, 23 August, 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/syrians-torn-despotic-regime-stagnant-opposition.

[20] Stefan J. Bos, Egypt Christians Killed After Election of Morsi, Bosnewslife, June 30, 2012, accessed in http://www.bosnewslife.com/22304-egypt-christians-killed-after-election-morsi.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Irfan Al-Alawi, Egyptian Muslim Fundamentalists Attack Sufis, Guardian Online [London],

April 11, 2011, accessed in http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1770/egyptian-Muslim-fundamentalists-attack-sufis

[23] Yafiah Katherine Randall, UNESCO urges Libya to stop destruction of Sufi sites, August 31, 2012, Sufi News and Sufism World Report, accessed in http://sufinews.blogspot.de/.

[24] Jamie Dettmer, Libya elections: Muslim Brotherhood set to lead government, 5 July, 2012, The Telegraph, London, accessed in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9379022/Libya-elections-Muslim-Brotherhood-set-to-lead-government.html.

[25] Luke Harding, Chris Stephen, Chris Stevens, US ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack: Ambassador and three other American embassy staff killed after Islamist militants fired rockets at their car, say Libyan officials, London Guardian, 12 September 2012, accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/chris-stevens-us-ambassador-libya-killed.

[26] Murad Batal al-Shishani, Profile: Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, 8 March 2012, accessed in  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17402856.

[27] David M. Herszenhorn, Putin Says Missile Deal Is More Likely With Obama, The New York Times, September 6, 2012, accessed in http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/europe/putin-calls-missile-deal-more-likely-if-obama-wins.html. According to an interview Putin gave on Moscow’s state-owned RT TV, Herszenhorn reports, “Mr. Putin said he believed that if Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, a compromise could be reached on the contentious issue of American plans for a missile defense system in Europe, which Russia has strongly opposed. On the other hand, Mr. Putin said, if Mr. Romney becomes president, Moscow’s fears about the missile system — that it is, despite American assurances, actually directed against Russia — would almost certainly prove true.

“Is it possible to find a solution to the problem, if current President Obama is re-elected for a second term? Theoretically, yes,” Mr. Putin said, according to the official transcript posted on the Kremlin’s Web site. “But this isn’t just about President Obama. “For all I know, his desire to work out a solution is quite sincere,” Mr. Putin continued. “I met him recently on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, where we had a chance to talk. And though we talked mostly about Syria, I could still take stock of my counterpart. My feeling is that he is a very honest man, and that he sincerely wants to make many good changes. But can he do it? Will they let him do it?”

[28] M.K. Bhadrakumar, Calling the China-Russia split isn’t heresy, Asia Times,  September 5, 2012, accessed in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NI05Ad01.html.


  • Posted in Desktop Only, English
  • Comments Off on Salafism and the CIA: Destabilizing the Russian Federation?

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

September 8th, 2012 by Global Research

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

We are very proud to launch an updated version of our website, featuring the same timely and analytical content as before, in a display that will be easier for our readers to navigate so that you can get the information you need as quickly and easily as possible.

On this website, you will be able to access an archive of more than 30,000 articles published by Global Research.

We thank all of our readers for the feedback you have sent us over the years and hope you will enjoy your browsing experience.

These changes would not be possible without your support, and for that we extend our sincere appreciation.

To help us cover the costs of important projects and necessary upgrades like this, we kindly ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research.

We also take this opportunity to invite you to become a Member of Global Research

If we stand together, we can fight media lies and expose the truth. There is too much at stake to choose ignorance.

Be aware, stay informed, spread the message of peace far and wide.

Feedback and suggestions regarding our new website are most welcome. To post a comment, kindly visit us on the Global Research facebook page



The Global Research Team

Author’s Note and update

Since this article was first published more than a year ago on July 11, 2020 under the title LancetGate: “Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption. Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir on July 3, 2020, there has been a virtual censorship of debate on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin largely directed against medical doctors.

On May 22, Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report  by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, was published by the New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM)

On June 29, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the head of NIAID granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. despite the fact that the study of the new experimental drug was “preliminary”.The NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

A $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. was announced on June 29th, 2020 despite the fact that NIH NIAID study published in the NEJM was considered “preliminary”. In the late 1990s, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006).

In recent developments, there is an ongoing campaign to suppress both Hydroxycholoroquine as well as Ivermectin as effective preventive and curative drugs.

The objective has been to sustain the vaccination campaign on behalf of Big Pharma.

A revised version of this article was published as a chapter in the author’s E-book entitled:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

I should mention tat there are recent reports of Covid-19 related deaths of hospitalized patients treated with Remdesevir.


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 25, 2020, May 27, 2021, August 1, 2021, September 22, 2021



There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation”  published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.

While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed “a tiny US based company” named Surgisphere whose employees included “a sci-fi writer and adult content model” for spreading “flawed data” (Guardian). This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.

While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.

When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at  Brigham and Women’s Hospital apologized:

I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards.

It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC  (official statement on BWH website)

But that “truly sorry” note was just the tip of the iceberg. Why?

Studies on Gilead Science’s Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)

While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham’s contract with Gilead Sciences Inc:

Brigham and Women’s Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead’s antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.

… If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren’t, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies.”

While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc: “He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate” (France Soir, May 23, 2020)

What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine?

According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, … professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. (France Soir, June 5, 2020)

Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon).

Who are the Main Actors? 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.

Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.

Gilead Sciences Inc: History

Gilead Sciences Inc is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US Government.

In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc, developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the  time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005): “The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences”.

Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as “a go between” the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would: 

“accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes’ hosts — human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity.” (WPo report)

In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush “for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.”

The 2020 Gilead Sciences Inc Remdesivir Project

We will be focussing on key documents (and events)


February 21: Initial Release pertaining to NIH-NIAID Remdesivir placebo test trial

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

April 29: NIH Release: Study on Remdesivir (Report published on May 22 in NEJM)

May 22, The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet

May 22Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, New England Journal of Medicine, (NEJM) 

June 5: The (fake) Lancet Report (May 22) on HCQ is Retracted.

June 29, Fauci announcement. The $1.6 Billion Remdevisir HHS Agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc

April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc. study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”

A Gilead sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled  “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19” . It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists, many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc.

Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors.

The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) … Of the 53 remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of treatment.

The NEJM article states that “Gilead Sciences Inc began accepting requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020”. From whom, From Where? According to the WHO (January 30, 2020) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada.

Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast  doubt on the Compassionate Use of Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focussing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test  is less that the number of co-authors: “53 patients” versus “56 co-authors”

Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project (Science Media Centre emphasis added) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article:

‘Compassionate use’ is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available. Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials. Prof Duncan Richard, Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford.

 “It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir. Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Leeds.

 “The research is interesting but doesn’t prove anything at this point: the data are from a small and uncontrolled study.  Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Prescribing, University of Edinburgh.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written.  Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

 “It’s very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don’t know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a missed opportunity.” Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol.

To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments click here

April 29: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study on Remdevisir. 

On April 29th following the publication of the Gilead Sciences Inc Study in the NEJM on April 10, a press release of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Remdevisir was released.  The full document was published on May 22, by the NEJM under the title:

 Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) 

The study had been initiated on February 21, 2020. The title of the April 29 Press Release was:

“Peer-reviewed data shows remdesivir for COVID-19 improves time to recovery”

It’s a government sponsored report which includes preliminary data from a randomized trial involving 1063 hospitalized patients. The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) are preliminary, conducted under the helm of Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):

An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level.

Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).  (emphasis added)

In the NIH’s earlier February 21, 2020 report (released at the outset of the study), the methodology was described as follows:

… A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the investigational antiviral remdesivir in hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) …

Numbers. Where? When? 

The February 21 report confirmed that the first trial participant was “an American who was repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship” that docked in Yokohama (Japanese Territorial Waters). “Thirteen people repatriated by the U.S. State Department from the Diamond Princess cruise ship” were selected as patients for the placebo trial test. Ironically, at the outset of the study, 58.7% of the “confirmed cases” Worldwide (542 cases out of 924) (outside China),  were on the Diamond Cruise Princess from which the initial trial placebo patients were selected.

Where and When: The trial test in the 68 selected sites? That came at a later date because on February 19th (WHO data), the US had recorded only 15 positive cases (see Table Below).

“A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study—47 in the United States and 21 in countries in Europe and Asia.” (emphasis added)

In the final May 22 NEJM report entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

There were 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States (45 sites), Denmark (8), the United Kingdom (5), Greece (4), Germany (3), Korea (2), Mexico (2), Spain (2), Japan (1), and Singapore (1). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either remdesivir or placebo. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment

The Washington Post applauded Anthony Fauci’s announcement (April 29):

“The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, …  fall short of the magic bullet or cure… But with no approved treatments for Covid-19,[Lie] Fauci said, it will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients …The data shows that remdisivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” Fauci said.

The government’s first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday — but rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at hand.

The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal benefit in the rate of death.

… Fauci’s remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug.

In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients under compassionate use. [also refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the NEJM]

The study, involving [more than] 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and around the world (??), offers the first evidence (??) from a large (??), randomized (??) clinical study of remdesivir’s effectiveness against COVID-19.

The NIH placebo test study provided “preliminary results”. While the placebo trial test was “randomized”, the overall selection of patients at the 68 sites was not fully randomized. See the full report.

May 22: The Fake Lancet Report on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

It is worth noting that the full report of the NIH-NIAID) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report was released on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM, on the same day as the controversial Lancet report on Hydroxychloroquine.

Immediately folllowing its publication, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ cure, while applauding the NIH-NIASD report released on the same day.

Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat Covid-19, sped the recovery time of patients with the disease, … “It’s a very safe and effective drug,” said Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “We now have a definite first efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with other drugs, [and drug] combinations.”

When the Lancet HCQ article by  Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it received minimal media coverage. Despite the Retraction, the HCQ cure “had been killed”.

June 29: Fauci Greenlight. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc

Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29, 2020.

The semi-official US government NIH-NIAID sponsored report (May 22) entitled Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report (NEJM) was used to justify a major agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Report was largely funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

On June 29, based on the findings of the NIH-NIAID Report published in the NEJM, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies of the remdesivir drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. for the treatment of Covid-19 in America’s private hospitals and clinics.

The earlier Gilead study based on scanty test results published in the NEJM (April 10), of 53 cases (and 56 co-authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been  questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists.

Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? 500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,200 per patient, namely $1.6 billion (see the study by Elizabeth Woodworth)

The Drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union. under the brandname Veklury.

If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.


[error in above title according to HHS: $3200]

According to The Trump Administration’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):

“To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. [at $3200] The Trump Administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for COVID-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

Remdesivir versus Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)

Careful timing:

The Lancet study (published on May 22) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19, with a view to sustaining the $1.6 billion agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th. The legitmacy of this agreement rested on the May 22 NIH-NIAID study in the NEJM which was considered “preliminary”. 

What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been “studied” and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections.  And that Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several countries.

According to the Virology Journal (2005) Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”. It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC. 

HCQ is not only effective, it is “inexpensive” when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated “$3120 for a US Patient with private insurance”.

Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard’s Professor Mehra (who undertook the May 22 Lancet study) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet report (prior to its Retraction).

Dr. Mandeep Mehra: In our study, it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable. [referring to the May 22 Lancet study]

France Soir: Do you have the data for Remdesivir?

MM: Yes, we have the data, but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to conclude in one way or another.

FS: As you know, in France, there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical companies. Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end to all speculation?  …

MM: In fact, there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. On the one hand, Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a reduction in recovery time. On the other hand, for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite: it has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition, our study shows that there are harmful effects.

It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated harmfulness to a drug with at least a glimmer of hope.

FS: You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with hydroxychloroquine, do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous?

MM: Exactly. …

All we are saying is that once you have been infected (5 to 7 days after) to the point of having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load, the use of hydroxychloroquine and its derivative is not effective.

The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair. With this treatment [HCQ] it can generate more complications

FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor’s chair.

He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate.

France Soir, translated by the author, emphasis added, May 23, 2020)

In Annex, see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the data base of Dr. Mehra’s Lancet report was revealed.

Concluding Remarks

 Lies and Corruption to the nth Degree involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, “The Boston Connection” and Gilead Sciences Inc.

The Gilead Sciences Inc. Remdesivir study (50+ authors) was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 10, 2020).

It was followed by the NIH-NIAID Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Preliminary Report on May 22, 2020 in the NEJM.  And on that same day, May 22, the “fake report” on Hydroxychloroquine by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra was published by The Lancet.

Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the fake Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.

Is there conflict of interest? BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on Remdesivir in contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc.

While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard’s Dr. Mehra was retracted, it nonetheless served the interests of Gilead Sciences Inc.

It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken, respectively of the Gilead Sciences Inc New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) peer reviewed study (April 10, 2020) as well as the NIH-NIAID study also published in the NEJM (May 22, 2020). 


Retraction by France Soir

The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in early June. France Soir in a subsequent article (June 5, 2020) points to the Boston Connection: La connexion de Boston, namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and Professor Mehra, Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals involved.



(excerpts here, to access the complete text click here translation from French by France Soir, emphasis in the original article)

The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results.

… However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation

It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston.

That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere.

Funding for the study was “Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.”

The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic.  …

It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai’s company.

These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity.

The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ,  another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir.

In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, “remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.”

Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ  in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal.

It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth “Libby”* Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices.

Coincidence, probably.

Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead’s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals:

“While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment.

“Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir.”

MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH. MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital.

” It’s a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better.

“The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.**

As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ.

Coincidence, probably.

At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead, the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.”

As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising.

Small world! Coincidence, again, probably.

Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead’s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston.:

“Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.**

Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen.

…”Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 

– One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone

– The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19

“We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures,” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks.

These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence.

So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really ?


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Battle to Suppress Hydroxychloroquine as a Cheap and Effective Drug for the Treatment of Covid-19
  • Tags:

U.S. Militarism’s Toxic Impact on Climate Policy

September 22nd, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

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.



President Biden addressed the UN General on September 21 with a warning that the climate crisis is fast approaching a “point of no return,” and a promise that the United States would rally the world to action. “We will lead not just with the example of our power but, God willing, with the power of our example,” he said

But the U.S. is not a leader when it comes to saving our planet. Yahoo News recently published a report titled “Why the U.S. Lags Behind Europe on Climate Goals by 10 or 15 years.” The article was a rare acknowledgment in the U.S. corporate media that the United States has not only failed to lead the world on the climate crisis, but has actually been the main culprit blocking timely collective action to head off a global existential crisis.

The anniversary of September 11th and the U.S. defeat in Afghanistan should be ringing alarm bells inside the head of every American, warning us that we have allowed our government to spend trillions of dollars waging war, chasing shadows, selling arms and fueling conflict all over the world, while ignoring real existential dangers to our civilization and all of humanity.

The world’s youth are dismayed by their parents’ failures to tackle the climate crisis. A new survey of 10,000 people between the ages of 16 and 25 in ten countries around the world found that many of them think humanity is doomed and that they have no future.

Three quarters of the young people surveyed said they are afraid of what the future will bring, and 40% say the crisis makes them hesitant to have children. They are also frightened, confused and angered by the failure of governments to respond to the crisis. As the BBC reported, “They feel betrayed, ignored and abandoned by politicians and adults.”

Young people in the U.S. have even more reason to feel betrayed than their European counterparts. America lags far behind Europe on renewable energy. European countries started fulfilling their climate commitments under the Kyoto Protocol in the 1990s and now get 40% of their electricity from renewable sources, while renewables provide only 20% of electric power in America.

Since 1990, the baseline year for emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, Europe has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 24%, while the United States has failed to cut them at all, spewing out 2% more than it did in 1990. In 2019, before the Covid pandemic, the United States produced more oil and more natural gas than ever before in its history.

NATO, our politicians and the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic promote the idea that the United States and Europe share a common “Western” culture and values. But our very different lifestyles, priorities and responses to this climate crisis tell a tale of two very different, even divergent economic and political systems.

The idea that human activity is responsible for climate change was understood decades ago and is not controversial in Europe. But in America, politicians and news media have blindly or cynically parroted fraudulent, self-serving disinformation campaigns by ExxonMobil and other vested interests.

While the Democrats have been better at “listening to the scientists,” let’s not forget that, while Europe was replacing fossil fuels and nuclear plants with renewable energy, the Obama administration was unleashing a fracking boom to switch from coal-fired power plants to new plants running on fracked gas.

Why is the U.S. so far behind Europe when it comes to addressing global warming? Why do only 60% of Europeans own cars, compared with 90% of Americans? And why does each U.S. car owner clock double the mileage that European drivers do? Why does the United States not have modern, energy-efficient, widely-accessible public transportation, as Europe does?

We can ask similar questions about other stark differences between the United States and Europe. On poverty, inequality, healthcare, education and social insurance, why is the United States an outlier from what are considered societal norms in other wealthy countries?

One answer is the enormous amount of money the U.S. spends on militarism. Since 2001, the United States has allocated $15 trillion (in FY2022 dollars) to its military budget, outspending its 20 closest military competitors combined.

The U.S. spends far more of its GDP (the total value of goods produced and services) on the military than any of the other 29 Nato countries—3.7% in 2020 compared to 1.77%. And while the U.S. has been putting intense pressure on NATO countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on their militaries, only ten of them have done so. Unlike in the U.S., the military establishment in Europe has to contend with significant opposition from liberal politicians and a more educated and mobilized public.

From the lack of universal healthcare to levels of child poverty that would be unacceptable in other wealthy countries, our government’s under-investment in everything else is the inevitable result of these skewed priorities, which leave America struggling to get by on what is left over after the U.S. military bureaucracy has raked off the lion’s share – or should we say the “generals’ share”? – of the available resources.

Federal infrastructure and “social” spending in 2021 amount to only about 30% of the money spent on militarism. The infrastructure package that Congress is debating is desperately needed, but the $3.5 trillion is spread over 10 years and is not enough.

On climate change, the infrastructure bill includes only $10 billion per year for conversion to green energy, an important but small step that will not reverse our current course toward a catastrophic future. Investments in a Green New Deal must be bookended by corresponding reductions in the military budget if we are to correct our government’s perverted and destructive priorities in any lasting way. This means standing up to the weapons industry and military contractors, which the Biden administration has so far failed to do.

The reality of America’s 20-year arms race with itself makes complete nonsense of the administration’s claims that the recent arms build-up by China now requires the U.S. to spend even more. China spends only a third of what the U.S. spends, and what is driving China’s increased military spending is its need to defend itself against the ever-growing U.S. war machine that has been “pivoting” to the waters, skies and islands surrounding its shores since the Obama administration.

Biden told the UN General Assembly that “…as we close this period of relentless war, we’re opening a new era of relentless diplomacy.” But his exclusive new military alliance with the U.K. and Australia, and his request for a further increase in military spending to escalate a dangerous arms race with China that the United States started in the first place, reveal just how far Biden has to go to live up to his own rhetoric, on diplomacy as well as on climate change.

The United States must go to the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow in November ready to sign on to the kind of radical steps that the UN and less developed countries are calling for. It must make a real commitment to leaving fossil fuels in the ground; quickly convert to a net-zero renewable energy economy; and help developing countries to do the same. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres says, the summit in Glasgow “must be the turning point” in the climate crisis.

That will require the United States to seriously reduce the military budget and commit to peaceful, practical diplomacy with China and Russia. Genuinely moving on from our self-inflicted military failures and the militarism that led to them would free up the U.S. to enact programs that address the real existential crisis our planet faces – a crisis against which warships, bombs and missiles are worse than useless.


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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from CommonDreams

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 are some things that bring joy to my soul. My pleasures are simple ones. Peanut butter on toast (the food of gods), witnessing Macron getting a slap, and this…

The awesome thing here is that what is taking place is that our competition on bidding for coal assets has disappeared in a cloud of woke smoke.

This will quickly become geopolitical, and the question is this: can BlackRock, Citi, Prudential, HSBC, and their other woke mates decide the fate of nations?

They are already affecting the fate of nations. Witness Canada and all of Western Europe.

I found a live shot of their respective energy policies:

But will they do the same to China? Will they do the same to Russia?

The answer to that will only be fully revealed in the due course of time, but we don’t really need any crystal balls here as we just watch actions, not words.

“China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.”

Nearly all of the 60 new coal plants planned across Eurasia, South America and Africa — 70 gigawatts of coal power in all — are financed almost exclusively by Chinese banks”

We see all of this on the ground, and while it is taking place, formerly reputable media outlets such as the FT, Reuters, and Bloomberg tell us that: “China’s belt and road initiative creates a problem for China with respect to their climate goals.”


There is no conflict or problem. Let me explain. Here is what is transpiring. They will keep paying lip service to the woke ideology while capturing the bulk of the energy market, and by the time we all wake up, they’ll control the world’s energy and logistics chains. And once they’ve done that, they’ll be able to control the reserve currency and once they’ve done that… well, they will be the dominant power. Game over. At this rate they’ll get there in a frighteningly rapid period of time. No more than a couple of decades.


Source: International Man

Every week I find myself saying to myself “I just can’t believe this sh**t I am reading.” It is the same old story. The West see themselves as above the East and that the West (North America and Europe) can dictate to the rest of the world what they must do.

From the BlackRock article:

“BlackRock Inc. and other major financial institutions are working on plans to accelerate the closure of coal-fired power plants in Asia in a bid to phase out the use of the worst man-made contributors to climate change.

“The world cannot possibly hit the Paris climate targets unless we accelerate the retirement and replacement of existing coal-fired electricity,” Don Kanak, chairman of Prudential’s insurance growth markets division, said in a statement. “This is especially in Asia where existing coal fleets are big and young and will otherwise operate for decades.””

So shut down coal fired power stations, and pray tell, what are you going to replace them with? How will this affect their standards of living?

Let’s put some numbers behind this to understand probabilities. China has a massive industrial sector. So massive it currently consumes 4x more primary energy than its transport sector and more primary energy than all of the US and European industrial sectors COMBINED. So, it’s big.

Will the CCP willingly negatively impact this sector whereby it threatens China’s growing lead in the global economy and, hence increasing global political influence? I’ll let you be the decider.

In contrast to the US, China uses 10x more coal than natural gas. In 2020, China built over 3x as much new coal capacity as all other countries combined, equal to one large coal plant PER WEEK. In fact, in 2020 alone China’s fleet of coal fired power plants was expanded by a net 29.8 GW.

Think that’s a lot? In 2020 they commissioned 73.5 GW of new coal plant proposals, which is over 5x that of the rest of the entire world combined.

Editor’s Note: The 2020s will likely to be an increasingly volatile decade. More governments are putting their money printing on overdrive. Negative interests are becoming the rule instead of the exception to it.

One thing is for sure, there will be a great deal of change taking place in the years ahead.

That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team released an urgent new report titled Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions.


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.

AUKUS vs China: Inching Toward War

September 22nd, 2021 by Brian Berletic

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on AUKUS vs China: Inching Toward War

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.



What US/Western dark forces — including their public health fraudsters — and supportive MSM press agents suppress about flu/covid is most crucial for everyone to know.

A personal note:

Well into my 9th decade, I refuse to be silent about the most important issue in world history.

Nothing preceding it approached the gravity of what’s going on.

Made-in-the-USA by diabolical dark forces in cahoots with Western partners, Pharma and supportive media, virtually everything mandated and urged since last year is all about irreversibly harming maximum numbers of people worldwide.

Staying silent about the most diabolical crime against humanity imaginable borders on complicity with what’s going on.

Supporting it shares equal guilt with the crime of the century and all others preceding it.

Noncompliance, resistance and civil disobedience were never more urgent than now.

US/Western and go along regimes like apartheid Israel betrayed their people and humanity by pushing diabolical aims on the phony pretext of protecting public health they’re going all out to destroy.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) executive director Jane Orient MD earlier warned that flu/covid jabs not only are “unnecessary.”

They’re “more likely to harm than to benefit” anyone.

Most AAPS surveyed doctors know about “significant adverse reaction(s)” to jabbed individuals.

The vast majority of ones unjabbed believe risk(s) of shots (are greater) than (the) disease” they’re supposed to protect against but don’t.

Last spring, a Tel Aviv University study found that flu/covid variants are eight times more likely to be harmful to jabbed individuals than refuseniks.

Other data show that jabbed individuals are more likely to contract the viral illness and other serious diseases than their unjabbed counterparts.

Dr. Robert Malone — inventor of gene-based mRNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna — earlier warned that their “spike protein…causes severe problems (including) bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems.”

Their nanoparticle-based delivery system is unapproved because of serious harm it causes to health.

Studied for years, it’s known that the technology for human use causes widespread numbers of adverse events, many serious ones, including fatalities.

It’s known that lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) risk pathologic neuro-inflammation that could cause multiple sclerosis, ALS, or other serious diseases.

Based on research he conducted, COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund director Steve Kirsch earlier said that flu/covid jabs “likely killed over 25,800 Americans and disabled at least 1,000,000 more.”

On Monday, Health Impact News (HIN) quoted him saying that “expert analysis” showed that over 150,000 Americans died following jabs.

He likely referred to similar analysis by Jessica Rose, PhD (in computational biology), MSc (in immunology), and BSc (in applied mathematics) — currently a post-doctoral researcher:

Last May, I quoted her saying the following:

“Analysis suggests that (covid jabs) are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological AEs.”

Because of hazards posed by jabs, “extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in this experiment” —that’s highly likely to turn out very badly, far worse than already.

On August 28, she and researcher Matthew Crawford said the following:

“Analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database can be used to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by (flu/covid jabs).”

“A simple analysis shows that it is likely that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by (jabs) as of August 28, 2021.”

“Anaphylaxis (a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction) is a well known side effect” from jabs.

Pharma-controlled CDC VAERS data “underreport(ed) (it) 50X to 123X” — to cover up numbers of deaths from jabs.

Estimates of underreporting and numbers of deaths following jabs “were validated multiple independent ways.”

“There is no evidence that these (jabs) save more lives than they cost.”

“Pfizer’s own study showed that adverse events consistent with (its mRNA jabs) were greater than the lives saved…”

“Without an overall statistically significant all-cause mortality benefit, and evidence of an optional medical intervention, (it’s) likely (that jabs) killed over 150,000 Americans” in 8 months.

Jabbing “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.”

A Final Comment

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) for practicing medicine ethically and responsibly said the following on the effectiveness of early flu/covid treatments.

Numerous studies prove it, including use of safe and effective hydroxychloroquinem (HCQ), ivermectin, zinc, and Vitamin D.”

“(A)ccording to various protocols…(they) prevent hospitalization and death due to” flu/covid.

AFLDS explained that over 32 studies “show 96% positive effects”from using one of these protocols as directed.

In 2015, the WHO included ivermectin in its list of essential medicines for human use prophylactically or treatment.

Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) founder Dr. Pierre Kory called ivermectin’s effectiveness in treating the viral illness “miraculous.”

Yet US/Western dark forces, their anti-public health officials, and MSM press agents falsely debunk and demean use of known safe and effective protocols for treating and curing flu/covid.

Their diabolical aim is all about causing mass-casualties.

It’s about suppressing information and use of known safe and effective protocols.

It’s about benefitting privileged interests by harming and eliminating maximum numbers of unwanted others.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”


“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”


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.



Listen to Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, talking about the pandemic and the COVID vaccine.

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.

Featured image: Dr Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer vice president and co-founder of Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics. Photo credits: The Last American Vagabond / Odysee

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 expecting at least twelve seats won by Maxime Bernier and the People’s Party of Canada in yesterday’s Federal Election. They were the only party talking any sense when it came to their COVID-19 policy. They were the only logical choice on the ballots.

This morning I woke up to see they have zero seats.

Now, we could justly blame such a dismal lose on the brainwashed sheeple, as Madeleine K. Albright says in Fascism: A Warning:

Good guys don’t always win, especially when they are divided and less determined than their adversaries. The desire for liberty may be ingrained in every human breast, but so is the potential for complacency, confusion, and cowardice. And losing has a price.

But admitting such would probably put me in the “complacency” category. Instead, I think we need to look at the PPC’s message.

First, let me say, that I am a founding member of the People’s Party of Canada. I voted for them in the previous election. On a local level, I’ve sacrificed around forty hours of work over the last month, putting up this website for our candidate, writing daily emails and creating this full-colour, double-page flyer. I’ve stood by their platform and their message.

But my gut feeling has always been their message is too restrained. I think they would have won many seats in last night’s election if they had told the whole truth. They need to stop being politically correct about the COVID-19 narrative. Maxime Bernier repeatedly said they were trying to “flatten the lie.” But, in reality, there are like ten or twenty lies around COVID-19.

For example, while the PPC has been speaking out against the vaccine passport, they haven’t spoken out against the vaccine itself. The vaccine is not “safe and effective” and I think they need to say that.

The PPC is selling freedom. The other parties are selling safety.

Most people care more about safety than freedom.

Selling freedom is not working.

People think the vaccine, and a vaccine passport, will keep them safe—freedom be damned.

But the untested COVID-19 shot is not safe. The CDC currently reports nearly 15,000 deaths in the United States from this experimental mRNA injection. We know deaths are under-reported as the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System is very passive and not mandatory.

But for further evidence of the dangers of the vaccine, we need only look at the Moderna/Pfizer trials themselves, where five percent of healthy, young test subjects suffered severe reactions, and the other 95% suffered moderate to minor reactions. And that was in the first six weeks. We’ve no idea what the result will be for younger or older people, over the course of six years, with a new shot every six months.

Or do we? “A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19,” says a paper in Toxicology Report.

In my city we hear sirens every day with people suffering side effects. Nurses tell me stories about teens being treated for heart problems after their shot, and seniors dropping dead after inoculation. My sister-in-law has been in bed for three days after her second shot. My barber threw up all night. My friends mother died. A boy can’t use his right arm because of a blot clot.

Most of us now know someone who died unexpectedly after getting the shot, but we still don’t know someone who died of COVID. ABC asked viewers to submit stories of people they know who died of COVID-19 after refusing the vaccine. Instead of COVID death stories, they received 39,000 angry comments on their Facebook page like: “No stories on that. But a guy I knew got his shot and 2 days later dropped dead of a heart attack. Why don’t you report on THAT?” (See World Tribune for a summary.)

The D-dimer test, according to Dr. Charles Hoffe and others, shows 62% of people who get the shot have micro blood clots in their small blood vessels (e.g. their brain, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, etc.). Sure, they don’t die. Not right away. Instead their body gets weaker, and their cognitive function decreases. (Maybe that’s why they didn’t vote PPC?)

These are all facts. Just like it’s a fact that there has not been proven any benefit to the shot, as Dr. Ron Brown has shown in his peer-reviewed report on the Moderna/Pfizer trials.

I think the PPC needs to start telling the whole truth. We are already labelled as “anti-vaxxer,” so who cares? Let’s not stop there. Let’s get the full “COVID denier” label, too. What’s there to lose? Certainly not seats in last night’s election.

For the last eighteen months, the PPC has played softball with these psychopaths. They gave them a chance to back down, reap what profits they could from voluntary participants in their genocidal vaccine money-making scheme, and let life get back to normal. But psychopaths are crazy. They don’t take the olive branch. Instead, they snap them in half. Now’s it is time to bring out big white elephants.

I would recommend the People’s Party of Canada create a public health advisory team, pulling together all the doctors and nurses and researchers in Canada who have been shamed, censored and fired. Get the evidence in order, and show the country, and the world, the scam from beginning to end. Here’s what we know. Here’s what they did. Instead of keeping you safe, they have been causing death and harm through all the COVID measures, especially the vaccine. Call for a full investigation or just go ahead and launch one yourself. Let these tyrants know they are going to prison for the rest of their lives if they are found guilty.

You could even be nice, and offer amnesty to anybody who will step forward and blow the whistle.

Max Bernier needs to stop saying “we need to learn to live with the virus.” After 18 months of a “global pandemic” with millions of so-called “cases” they still haven’t isolated the virus. It’s fair to assume there is and never was a so-called SARS-COV-2 virus. Or if there was some genetic fragment floating around it wasn’t causing any devastating disease. There was never a pandemic, death rates were lower in 2020 than 2019 or even 2018. Hospitals were never overrun anymore than they usually are during cold and flu season (with a few odd exceptions in New York where they liked to put people with an anxiety attack on a ventilator).

Not only should there not be a vaccine passport, the party needs to promise to suspend the purchase, distribution and inoculation of these these useless and dangerous injections. It’s the job of the government to protect people from harmful enterprises, not cooperate with their execution.

We should turn the tables around and say: “You have the freedom to take the shot if you want. But we are not paying for it. You can use your own money to buy whatever drug you want from whatever company you want. But we need to save the money to pay for your medical bills arising from the side effects of these vaccines.”

I think the People’s Party fell short by trying to make their message too people-pleasing and freedom-orientated. In the end, people react to fear and want protection. There is plenty to fear from the current government, media and shadowy elites. I think we need to expose what they have done and what they are doing, and offer people protection from such deceptions—because sooner or later, the house of lies will collapse.

Yes, to freedom! But not freedom for the government to continue it’s tyrannical agenda. Most Canadians are complicit in the lies. Let’s stop trying to please them. Let’s present the facts as they are, call a poison a poison and end this corona madness before it gets any worse. And, I think we all know, it can get a lot worse.

I hope Maxime Bernier, all of the candidates, staff and volunteers, continue to fight for Canada. I just ask that they start bringing out the heavy artillery of unpopular facts, while heading to even higher grounds of truth.


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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.

Featured image is from the author

Australia’s New Anti-China Alliance

September 22nd, 2021 by Pip Hinman

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia’s New Anti-China Alliance

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 now one year since controversial farm bills were passed into law in India in September 2020. The  three bills and the subsequent legislation have triggered a massive 15-month farmers’ protest that has attracted worldwide attention and support.

Farmers, farmers’ unions and their representatives demand that the laws be repealed and state that they will not accept a compromise. Farmers’ leaders welcomed the Supreme Court of India stay order on the implementation of the farm laws in January 2021 which remains in effect. However, based on more than 10 rounds of talks between farmers representatives and the government, it seems that the ruling administration will not back down.

In November 2020, a nationwide general strike took place in support of the farmers and in that month around 300,000 farmers marched from the states of Punjab and Haryana to Delhi for what leaders called a “decisive battle” with the central government.

But as the farmers reached the capital, most were stopped by barricades, dug up roads, water cannons, baton charges and barbed wire erected by police. The farmers set up camps along five major roads, building makeshift tents with a view to staying for months if their demands were not met.

Today, thousands of farmers remain camped at various points on the border. They have been there for nine months throughout the cold, the rain and the searing heat. In late March 2021, it was estimated that there were around 40,000 protestors camped at Singhu and Tikri at the Delhi border.

On 26 January, India’s Republic Day, tens of thousands of farmers held a farmer’s parade with a large convoy of tractors and drove into Delhi.

In September 2021, tens of thousands of farmers attended a rally in the city of Muzaffarnagar in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP). Hundreds of thousands more turned out for other rallies in the state.

These huge gatherings come ahead of important polls in 2022 in UP, India’s most populous state with 200 million people and governed by Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In the 2017 assembly polls, the BJP won 325 out of a total of 403 seats.

Speaking at the rally in Muzaffarnagar, farmers’ leader Rakesh Tikait stated:

“We take a pledge that we’ll not leave the protest site there (around Delhi) even if our graveyard is made there. We will lay down our lives if needed but will not leave the protest site until we emerge victorious.”

Tikait also attacked the Modi-led government for:

“… selling the country to corporates… We have to stop the country from getting sold. Farmers should be saved; the country should be saved.”

Farmers’ leaders are now calling for a nationwide general strike on 27 September.

Police brutality, the smearing of protesters by certain prominent media commentators and politicians, the illegal detention of protesters and clampdowns on free speech (journalists arrested, social media accounts closed, shutting down internet services) have been symptomatic of officialdom’s approach to the farmers’ struggle which itself has been defined by resilience, resoluteness and restraint.

But it is not as though the farmers’ struggle arose overnight. Indian agriculture has been deliberately starved of government support for decades and has resulted in a well-documented agrarian – even civilisation – crisis. What we are currently seeing is the result of injustices and neglect coming to a head as foreign agricapital (facilitated by the government’s farm laws) tries to impose its neoliberal ‘final solution’ on Indian agriculture.

A year on from the farm bills being passed into law, readers can access my articles on the farmers’ struggle below, which discuss the significance of the farm legislation, who is behind these laws, who will benefit and who will lose out. They also describe the implications for cultivators and the more than 60% of the nation’s population who rely on agriculture for a living as well as the health, social and economic consequences of displacing an indigenous agrifood system with one dominated by global players.

The farmers’ struggle represents a battle for the heart and soul of the nation and its future.


The illustration that accompanies this article was created by artist Isa Esasi and is based on a photograph by Ravi Choudhary, a photojournalist with the Press Trust of India (PTI), which went viral in November 2020. The original image showed a paramilitary policeman raising his baton and about to bring it down on an elderly Sikh farmer.

Source: Isa Esasi

Despite claims that the photo was ‘fake’ and attempts to discredit it, not least by Amit Malviya, head of the BJP’s IT cell, India-based Boom, which describes itself as “an independent digital journalism initiative with a mission to fight misinformation”, tracked down Sukhdev Singh, the farmer in the photograph, and interviewed him. The farmer was targeted by two security personnel and he sustained injuries to his forearm, back and leg.

Articles on the farmers’ protest


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.

Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture.
He is a Researh Associate of the Centre for Globalization in Montreal.

Covid Cases Fall in the Least Vaccinated Countries

September 22nd, 2021 by Rodney Atkinson

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.



World wide COVID daily cases have been falling since 19th August. They fell 24% between 19th August and 15th September but they fell least in the most vaccinated countries and most in the least vaccinated countries. In Scotland most hospitalisations and deaths are among the vaccinated. Big Tech censorship of grieving father of vaccine victim.

In Germany (vaccinated 66%), during the period world wide cases have been falling, daily cases actually rose 56% and in Israel they rose 65%.


In India the 240m populated State of Uttar Pradesh has virtually wiped out COVID cases (to about 15-20 per day) but has a vaccination rate of only 5.8% – they have relied on the widespread use of Ivermectin rather than vaccination! 

The UK reduction by 16% during the period is due (as predicted by Freenations in the last post) to the reduction in vaccinations taking place with a fall of 57% between 25th August and 14th September. But that fall cannot compare with the very large fall in cases in the lowest vaccinated countries of South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya and Bangladesh.

The above figures suggest that it is precisely the vaccination programmes and vaccination compulsion that are preventing a bigger fall in world wide COVID cases (and deaths – see Scotland death and hospitalisation figures below)

To continue the figures given in the last Post on this site the fall in UK vaccinations  continue to produce big falls in COVID case numbers.

UK vaccinations given:

UK COVID cases fall week on week:


It is now likely that as the vaccine numbers rise again with the obnoxious and totally illegal forced vaccination of schoolchildren *** that those children will with their higher viral loads (see Oxford University study in last Freenations post) infect teachers and parents.

So just as the world wide cases and deaths are falling the vaccine mad countries will be forcing the cases and deaths up again.

Scotland Deaths

As we showed in the previous post it is in Scotland that the true numbers of deaths from the vaccine have been revealed. The latest figures from Scotland show that the vaccinated now dominate both hospitalisations and deaths.


***Parents and grandparents should use the leaflets produced by Unity News Network to warn teachers, NHS staff, politicians and other that will be prosecuted for administering or recommending these vaccines to children: These are available in lots of 50, 100 or 150 and if you would like some please email [email protected].

Big Tech Censorship

See this.

In one of the most obscene examples of the censoring dictatorship of big tech corporations, Facebook has excluded the father whose son died from vaccine induced heart inflammation. Ernest Ramirez did an interview with Alex Jones of Infowars and described the death of his son five days after the Moderna vaccination. And when he tried to post a speech he gave in Austin Texas, Facebook blocked him because he “didn’t follow our community standards….on misinformation”. Young men are 14 times more susceptible to heart inflammation after taking a vaccination – but that has not stopped the US and UK Governments approving injections for 12-15 year olds.

I am sure we all live in hope that one day these arrogant, ignorant, censoring politicians and media controllers will pay a terrible price for their swaggering dictatorship and misinformation – and the deaths they have caused.


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 Children’s Health Defense

What Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Means for You

September 22nd, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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 his presidential campaign, Joe Biden promised he would not impose vaccine mandates. September 9, 2021, Biden issued an executive order, mandating all U.S. companies with 100 or more employees to require COVID vaccination or weekly testing, or face federal fines of up to $14,000 per violation

Biden is also requiring all federal employees and federal contractors to get the shots. Postal workers and members of Congress and their staff just happen to have been made exempt from this requirement

No exceptions for persons who have already had COVID and recovered, and therefore have antibodies to the virus, have been issued. Several lawsuits are underway by people who have natural immunity and don’t need or benefit from the mandated COVID shots

The Republican National Committee has announced they will sue the Biden administration for issuing an unconstitutional mandate

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted full approval to Comirnaty, that product is not yet available. The only Pfizer shot currently available, called BNT162b2, remains under emergency use authorization, and the two differ widely in their legal liabilities


September 9, 2021, in a sweeping executive order,1 President Joe Biden mandated all U.S. companies with 100 or more employees to require COVID vaccination or weekly testing, or face federal fines of up to $14,000 per violation. Biden also ordered businesses to give time off to employees to receive the injections.

Biden is also requiring all federal employees and federal contractors to get the shots. For unspecified reasons, postal workers and members of Congress and their staff are exempt from the vaccine mandate. Biden did not make any exceptions for persons who have already had COVID and recovered, and therefore have antibodies to the virus.

He also said he’d use his “power as president” against any governor unwilling to follow the order “to get them out of the way.”2 Biden may be biting off more than he can chew, however, because as of September 11, 2021, 28 states were already pushing back against federal vaccine mandates.3

Many States Vow to Fight Back Unconstitutional Mandate

The backlash was swift. The Republican National Committee quickly announced they would sue the Biden administration for issuing an “unconstitutional mandate.” GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel issued a statement:4

“Joe Biden told Americans when he was elected that he would not impose vaccine mandates. He lied. Now small businesses, workers, and families across the country will pay the price.

Like many Americans, I am pro-vaccine and anti-mandate. Many small businesses and workers do not have the money or legal resources to fight Biden’s unconstitutional actions and authoritarian decrees, but when his decree goes into effect, the RNC will sue the administration to protect Americans and their liberties.”

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse told the Daily Caller:5

“President Biden is so desperate to distract from his shameful, incompetent Afghanistan exit that he is saying crazy things and pushing constitutionally flawed executive orders.

This is a cynical attempt to pick a fight and distract from the President’s morally disgraceful decision to leave Americans behind Taliban lines on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. This isn’t how you beat COVID, but it is how you run a distraction campaign — it’s gross and the American people shouldn’t fall for it.”

In a series of tweets, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem stated:6,7

“South Dakota will stand up to defend freedom @JoeBiden see you in court,” and “My legal team is standing by ready to file our lawsuit the minute Joe Biden files his unconstitutional rule. This gross example of federal intrusion will not stand.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp also issued a statement saying he intends to “pursue every legal option available” to halt Biden’s “blatantly unlawful overreach,” as did Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who in a tweet stated:8

“This is exactly the kind of big government overreach we have tried so hard to prevent in Arizona — now the Biden-Harris administration is hammering down on private businesses and individual freedoms in an unprecedented and dangerous way. This will never stand up in court.

This dictatorial approach is wrong, un-American and will do far more harm than good. How many workers will be displaced? How many kids kept out of classrooms? How many businesses fined? The vaccine is and should be a choice. We must and will push back.”

Florida Governments Face Fines if Following Biden’s Order

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis countered Biden’s edict with one of his own. Any local government that makes COVID vaccination a requirement for employment will be fined $5,000 per violation.During a September 13, 2021, press conference, DeSantis said:

“We are gonna stand for the men and women who are serving us. We are going to protect Florida jobs. We are not gonna to let people be fired because of a vaccine mandate.

You don’t just cast aside people who have been serving faithfully over this issue, over what’s basically a personal choice on their individual health. We cannot let these folks be cast aside. We cannot allow their jobs to be destroyed.”

I was going to include DeSantis’ speech in this article, but it has since been deleted for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.” Imagine that, that they would actually remove a legally elected governor’s opinion on this topic because it violates

Biden Is Clearly Out of Legal Bounds

Biden’s executive order is unlikely to stand up in court, seeing how federal law prohibits the mandating of emergency use products, which by definition are experimental. As noted in a May 2021 report by The Defender:10

“The bottom line is this: mandating products authorized for Emergency Use Authorization status (EUA) violates federal law as detailed in the following legal notifications.11

All COVID vaccines, COVID PCR and antigen tests, and masks are merely EUA-authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government. Long-term safety and efficacy have not been proven.

EUA products are by definition experimental, which requires people be given the right to refuse them. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential.’

Earlier this year, Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, and attorney Greg Glaser stated that federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA COVID vaccines (or EUA COVID-19 tests or masks). Holland and Glaser wrote:12

‘If a vaccine has been issued EUA by the FDA, it is not fully licensed and must be voluntary. A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital cannot circumvent the EUA law, which prohibits mandates. Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that there is only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine.’”

If you’re like most, you’re probably thinking, “Well, Biden’s executive order came after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID shot Comirnaty, so the vaccine is not under EUA.” You’d be partially right. But mostly wrong.

The Difference Between Pfizer’s BNT162b2 Shot and Comirnaty

The FDA did indeed give full approval to Comirnaty, but that product is not predicted to be available for over a year. The only Pfizer shot currently available, called BNT162b2, remains under EUA. We have the FDA to thank for this unusual and befuddling situation, but the key take-home is that while approval has been granted to Comirnaty, that product is not obtainable.

The FDA wants BNT162b2 to be viewed as interchangeable with Comirnaty, but from a legal standpoint they clearly are not identical. BNT162b2, being under EUA, is indemnified against financial liability, whereas Comirnaty, once it becomes available, will not have that liability shield (unless Pfizer/BioNTech manage to get liability shielding for that product before its release).

In other words, if you’re injured by the BNT162b2, your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).13 Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. In its 15-year history, it has paid out just 29 claims, fewer than 1 in 10.14,15,16

You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. This means a retired person cannot qualify even if they die or end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.

If normal circumstances apply to Comirnaty, were you to be injured by that injection, you’d be able to sue for damages under the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Plan (VICP),17 so from a legal perspective, there’s a rather significant difference between these two products.

Legal Notifications You Can Use

If your employer or school requires you to get a COVID shot, consider using the legal notifications provided by the Children’s Health Defense legal team. The notices inform employers and educational institutions that they are violating federal law.

Three separate notices are available for download from the Children’s Health Defense Legal Resources page;18 one for mask mandates, one for PCR testing and a third for vaccines. There, you can also find information on how to request a religious exemption for COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the workplace.

Vaccine Mandate Heralds Communist Style Social Credit System

In a September 13, 2021, episode of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy warned that vaccine mandates are “the beginning of the communist-style social credit system,” adding:19

“Dr. Anthony Fauci is now saying that if you don’t have the vaccine, you shouldn’t be able to have air travel. I mean, this happens in China. In China … if you don’t agree with the government, you can’t get on a train. They block you. They have a way to do that, and this is the beginning of that system where if you’re a dissident, if you don’t agree with the party in power, you will be punished.”

Are we rushing toward a social credit system where behavior is either rewarded or punished based on the whims of those in charge of the system? Biden’s refusal to make exceptions for those with natural immunity, who by no stretch of the imagination actually need or benefit from a COVID shot, seems to indicate we’re definitely heading that way.

Giving people with natural immunity a health passport won’t work for the technocratic elite because the naturally immune aren’t on a vaccine subscription. The whole point of having a vaccine passport is that you lose your freedom every time a new booster rolls out. You either get the booster or lose your freedom.

People with natural immunity can’t be roped into this control scheme. What are they going to force the naturally immune to do in order to keep a valid passport? They can’t make money off natural immunity, and they can’t use it to control.

In a September 13, 2021, letter to Biden, Consumer Brands Association CEO Geoff Freeman listed 19 of 50 questions received from its member companies.20 Among those questions is whether Biden’s executive order includes religious or medical exemptions, including exemption due to natural immunity.

As reported by Newsweek,21 details of Biden’s plan will be ironed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but in the meantime, Freeman called on the Biden administration to address some of the most pressing questions.

OSHA Lets Employers Off the Hook for Vaccine Injuries

Speaking of OSHA, in May 2021, the agency quietly revoked22 the requirement23 for employers who mandate the vaccine to record side effects as a work-related event. By doing so, OSHA relieved itself and employers from having to pay out workers’ comp if an employee is injured by a mandated COVID shot. OSHA tried to justify its decision, stating:

“OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts.

As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”

People With Natural Immunity Turn to the Law

In the days ahead, our justice system is bound to clog up with lawsuits against employers, schools and governments alike. Law professor Todd Zywicki recently sued24 George Mason University in Virginia over their vaccine mandate, as he has natural immunity. Zywicki discussed his lawsuit in an August 6, 2021, Wall Street Journal commentary.25

His lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study26 up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement violates due process rights, the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, and is noncompliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.27

August 17, 2021, George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption.28 Unfortunately, the school did not revise its general policy.

A number of other lawsuits have also been filed, including one by more than a dozen students and Children’s Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey,29 and one by six Oregon workers who are suing the state on grounds that they already have natural immunity.30 The plaintiffs include two corrections officers, an EMT, a medical office manager, a school bus driver and a special agent in charge of an Oregon Department of Justice investigatory unit.

Jason Dudash, director of the Oregon chapter of the Freedom Foundation, which is representing the state employees, accused Oregon Gov. Kate Brown of becoming “power-hungry amid the pandemic.” “The courts must establish a more logical, science-based approach,” he said.31

Military Service Members Sue Over Vaccine Mandate

Military service members with natural immunity are also suing the Department of Defense, the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services. As reported by The Defender:32

“The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Staff Sergeant Daniel Robert and Staff Sergeant Holli Mulvihill, allege U.S. Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin ignored the DOD’s own regulations and created an entirely new definition of ‘full immunity’ as being achievable only by vaccination.

According to the lawsuit, the military’s existing laws and regulations unequivocally provide the exemption the plaintiffs seek under Army Regulation 40-562 (‘AR 40-562’), which provides documented survivors of an infection a presumptive medical exemption from vaccination because of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection …

Dr. Admiral Brett Giroir, HHS assistant secretary, stated in an interview Aug. 24 with Fox News: ‘So natural immunity, it’s very important … There are still no data to suggest vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity. I think both are highly protective.’

Yet on the same day, Austin issued a memo mandating the entire Armed Forces be vaccinated, in which he wrote: ‘Those with previous COVID-19 infection are not considered fully vaccinated.’

In that memo, plaintiffs allege Austin created a new term and concept, which contradicts the plain language of DOD’s own regulations, long-standing immunology practice, medical ethics and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence regarding this specific virus.

Plaintiffs claim Austin, who is not a doctor, changed the DOD’s own regulation without providing ‘a scintilla of evidence to support it.’ They also allege Austin made the regulation change without going through the required rulemaking process, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act review.”

The lawsuit also points out that Pfizer’s Phase 3 trials, which is the phase in which long-term side effects are detected, won’t be completed until 2023. Moreover, the lawsuit highlights the fact that Pfizer unblinded the two cohorts in the middle of the trial and eliminated the control group by offering the real “vaccine” to all controls.

In so doing, Pfizer turned the study from a placebo-controlled blinded trial into an open observational study, and the FDA allowed it. Observational studies carry nowhere near the same weight as placebo-controlled trials, as you don’t have anything to compare the treatment group against. It’s very easy to overlook even severe injuries when you have no control group.

Fauci Warns There Will Be ‘Many More Vaccine Mandates’

As we approach the two-year mark of this pandemic, it’s time for our judicial system to kick in and protect the public. The emergency powers granted to governors are not supposed to last forever, and the rights afforded us by the U.S. Constitution were never intended to be suspended and tossed aside in times of medical crises. It’s time this rampant lawlessness got reined in.

Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. What we can be sure of is that if our legal system fails to do its duty, the beacon of freedom in this world will be lost. As reported by CNN,33Fauci is out there warning that “if more people aren’t persuaded to get vaccinated by messaging from health officials and ‘trusted political messengers,’ additional mandates from schools and businesses may be necessary.”

The technocratic elite will take it all the way because they are fighting for the Great Reset. And the Great Reset won’t work if people are free. They need leverage over the population, which is precisely what vaccine passports are all about.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A Ruling With Tragic Consequences

In closing, those who support the mandating of experimental COVID shots will typically point to the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, which is often interpreted as giving government the right to force vaccinate everyone for the common good. However, as noted by Alex Berenson in a recent blog post,34 we ought to really look at the time at which that verdict was given.

In the years surrounding the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts verdict, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in favor of racial discrimination, corporate monopoly, child labor and making questioning government a jailable offense. That same year, in 1905, they ruled workers have no rights. In 1923, they ruled minimum wage laws are illegal and in 1927 they OK’d forced sterilization based on the Jacobson ruling.

Most of these rulings have since been overturned, and for obvious reasons. Most people don’t agree with racial discrimination, monopolies and child labor anymore. Most agree that minimum wage laws are a good thing, and that questioning government is an unassailable right that is necessary for democracy to work. The 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case is no different. It was made in and for a different time, when individual and human rights were routinely quashed.

As noted by National Vaccine Information Center president Barbara Loe Fisher in “How Fear of a Virus Changed Our World”:35

“Using bad logic and bad science while leaning heavily on the pseudo-ethic of utilitarianism, state governments were given the green light to legally require vaccination based on a ‘common belief’ that vaccination is safe and effective, rather than proven fact.

Piously waving the greater good flag to justify throwing civil liberties out the door, the court majority ruled that citizens do not have a legal right to be free at all times because there are ‘manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good’ …

But the justices also warned that mandatory vaccination laws should not be forced on a person whose physical condition would make vaccination ‘cruel and inhuman to the last degree.’ They said:

‘We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied in such a case or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. ‘All laws,’ this Court has said, ‘should receive a sensible construction’ …

During this time of fear and confusion, the Jacobson ruling also reminds us that it is democratically elected representatives in state legislatures who make public health laws governing people living in different states. That is because what is not defined in the U.S. Constitution as a federal activity is reserved for the states, which is an important check on federal government power.

Elected lawmakers in your state can choose to mandate a few or many vaccines with or without exemptions, while the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccinations for people entering the U.S. or crossing state borders.”

Sen. Warren Threatens Amazon to Ban ‘The Truth About COVID-19’

Since the publication of my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” which became an instant best seller on Amazon.com, there’s been a significant increase in calls for censorship and ruthless attacks against me.

Most recently, so-called “progressive” U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in an outrageous, slanderous and basically unconstitutional attempt to suppress free speech, sent a letter to Amazon, demanding an “immediate review” of their algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation.”

Warren specifically singled out “The Truth About COVID-19” as a prime example of “highly ranked and favorably tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wants to see banned from sale.

Two days later, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., followed in Warren’s footsteps, sending letters to Facebook and Amazon, calling for more prolific censorship of vaccine information. Even President Joe Biden has recently used a debunked report as his sole source to call for my censorship.

Sadly, these attacks are being levied by the very people elected to safeguard democracy and our Constitutional rights. Essentially, what they are calling for is modern-day book burning. This is a democracy, not a monarchy.


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.


1 American Military News September 9, 2021

2, 3, 7 ZeroHedge September 11, 2021

4, 5 Daily Caller September 9, 2021

6 Twitter Kristi Noem September 9, 2021

8 Twitter Doug Ducey September 9, 2021

9 The Hill September 13, 2021

10 The Defender May 18, 2021

11, 18 Children’s Health Defense Legal Resources

12 The Defender January 29, 2021

13 Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar CICP March 22, 2021 (PDF)

14 Life Site News June 15, 2021

15 Insurance Journal August 14, 2020

16 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

17 HRSA September 2021

19 Media Matters September 13, 2021

20, 21 Newsweek September 13, 2021

22 Ogletree May 6, 2021

23 Ogletree April 21, 2021

24 Zywicki vs George Mason University Case 1:21-cv-00894

25 WSJ August 6, 2021

26 JAMA Internal Medicine August 16, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]

27, 28 Citizens Journal August 25, 2021

29 Children’s Health Defense vs Rutgers Case 2: 21-cv-15333

30 Oregon Live September 10, 2021

31 Washington Free Beacon September 10, 2021

32 The Defender September 1, 2021

33 CNN September 14, 2021

34 Alex Berenson Substack September 13, 2021

35 NVIC June 1, 2020

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.



There have now been 1,614 recorded fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) as of 9/10/2021. (Source.)

Everyone acknowledges and agrees that VAERS is vastly under-reported, but now we have an expert analysis on just how under-reported adverse events are from Dr. Jessica Rose. Her conservative estimate based on a careful analysis of the data is that the events recorded in VAERS need to be multiplied by X41.

That would mean that a conservative estimate of the true numbers of fetal deaths would be 66,174 when their mothers are injected with a COVID-19 shot.

Besides the fetal deaths, we also know there are 96 recorded cases where a breastfed child was injured after the nursing mother took a COVID-19 shot. (Source.)

Again, if we multiply that number by X41, a conservative estimate would be about 3,936 adverse events in infants being breastfed when their mothers are injected.

Two of those resulted in the breastfed infant dying after the nursing mother was injected.

VAERS report ID 1532154 was apparently filed by the mother, a 36-year-old woman from New Mexico:

On July 17, my baby passed away.

I had been breastfeeding my 6 week old baby at the time that I received the first Pfizer vaccine on June 4, 2021.

He became very sick with a high fever about 2 weeks after I got the first Pfizer vaccine on June 21. He was treated for 2 weeks with IV antibiotics for a supposed bacterial infection.

However, they never found any specific bacteria, and called his diagnosis culture-negative sepsis. At the end of his hospital stay he tested positive for rhinovirus.

After the 14 day course of antibiotics, he was home for one week, but exhibited strange symptoms (e.g. swollen eyelid, strange rashes, vomiting).

I took him back to the hospital on July 15, where he presented with what they called an atypical Kawasaki disease.

He passed away shortly thereafter from clots in his severely inflamed arteries.

I am curious if the spike protein could have gone through the breast milk and caused an inflammatory response in my child.

They say Kawasaki disease presents very similarly to the Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome in children that they are seeing in post Covid infections. (My baby also had unusual birth circumstances, as he was born at 37 weeks, triggered by a maternal appendicitis.)

However, if they know that antibodies go through the breastmilk as a good thing, then why wouldn”t the spike protein also go through the breastmilk and potentially cause problems. (Source.)

The other breastfeeding infant death is VAERS case 1166062 which lists Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura as one of the symptoms. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura is a rare blood disorder in which blood clots form in small blood vessels throughout the body.

Patient received second dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2020 while at work. March 18, 2020 her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat, and developed a fever.

Patient brought baby to local ER where assessments were performed, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes. Infant was hospitalized but continued to decline and passed away.

Diagnosis of TTP. No known allergies. No new exposures aside from the mother”s vaccination the previous day. (Source.)

Last week someone from the UK uploaded a video of a newborn allegedly suffering from the effects of a COVID-19 shot the mother was forced to take against her will as a condition for having the baby in the hospital.

“My niece had her second child last month and throughout her pregnancy she resisted being vaccinated. A month before the baby was born she was told that she would need a cesarean section and the hospital and doctors insisted that they would not allow her into the hospital unless she had the jab.

With such pressure, and the worry of her baby’s health, she felt forced to comply and take the COVID shot. Now the baby is in hospital, has uncontrollable intermittent ‘jitters’ that are worsening and needs a brain scan as they cannot fathom what is causing this 😢

Every test that has been done has come back negative so they are being transferred to the Great Ormond Street hospital to do further investigations.”

This is from our Bitchute channel. It is also on our Rumble channel.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from HIN

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.



Several hundred elite Navy SEALs are in danger of being blocked from deploying with their special operator teams by the Pentagon after failing to get a mandatory COVID vaccine, according to a lawyer and pastor counseling them.

The number involved in the dispute with the Pentagon amounts to as many as a quarter or more of all active duty SEALs, a loss that could impact military readiness since SEAL teams play an outsized role in modern military operations, their advocates told Just the News. Some SEALS were given a deadline this week for the vaccine and have sought a religious exemption.

“My clients include several Navy SEALs who are a small part of a large group of SEALs and other military members who are being asked to choose between their faith and their ability to serve our nation,” said R. Davis Younts, a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force reserves and a JAG lawyer who is representing several of the special operators as a private lawyer. “They have been told that if they seek a religious accommodation, they likely will no longer be able to serve our country as Navy SEALs and been given an arbitrary deadline to comply with the vaccine mandate.

“My clients need time, and we are seeking at least a 90-day extension to vaccine mandate compliance deadline they have been given.”

Younts said the Pentagon has put its threat in writing that unvaccinated SEALs, including those who get a religious exemption or already have natural immunity, will be forbidden from deploying with their teams, all but ending their special operator careers. Some were given a deadline of this week, he said.

Pastor Jeff Durbin, a prominent anti-abortion activist and evangelical pastor from Arizona who has been ministering to the special operators for several weeks as they navigated the decision, said between a quarter to a third of all active-duty SEALS are involved in the dispute with the Pentagon, including some who already have COVID-19 immunity because they recovered from the disease.

“There are hundreds of Navy SEALs who have not been vaccinated, do not want to take the vaccine, or who have had and recovered from COVID and have the benefit of natural immunity,” Durbin told Just the News. “A large number of SEALS that I am speaking on behalf of are facing the very difficult decision that even with a legitimate religious exemption that is based upon their commitments to Christ, the Gospel, God’s Law, and the Constitution, they will no longer be Navy SEALs.

“They are essentially being asked to make a decision between their commitments to the lordship of Christ and their careers as Navy SEALs. Our country should be very concerned about what this would do to military readiness. Losing hundreds of Navy SEALs because of their legitimate and sincerely held Christian beliefs could be devastating to us as a nation.”

The Pentagon referred comment to the Navy, which did not immediately respond with a comment. A Navy source would only confirm that Nov. 28 is the deadline for all Navy personnel to get shots.

Tim Parlatore, a lawyer who helped win the acquittal of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher in the alleged death of an ISIS prisoner, said he has confirmed large numbers of SEALS are declining to get the vaccine right now.

“It’s in the hundreds. And it’s not the senior leadership. It’s all the shooters and it is going to have a huge impact,” Parlatore said. “If they continue with this asinine police you are going to have the complete decimation of the SEAL teams,” he said.

Parlatore said the SEALS are not anti-vaccine; in fact they get all sorts of shots. He said they just believe more safety data needs to be be available to make their own judgment. And some already have immunity from surviving the disease, he noted.

Federal health regulators say the vaccine is safe for most Americans, while acknowledging some rare but serious adverse events, such as sudden cardiac disease for younger adults.

It reportedly takes up to $500,000 and a year or more to fully train Navy SEALs, among the most elite and celebrated of the military’s special forces. SEALs shouldered a disproportionately heavy load during the war on terror the last two decades, with teams often deploying multiple times to war zones, including black-operations Team Six, which killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Younts’ and Durbin’s accounts were confirmed to Just the News by other lawyers representing special operators as well as several members of the SEAL community, who confirmed large numbers of special operators could be sidelined in the next few days. Most would only talk on background for fear of losing their jobs, but warned of a potential security calamity.

Eric Greitens, a retired Navy SEAL and the former Missouri governor now running for U.S. Senate, said the Pentagon’s current position wrongly impacts the nation’s defenses and the personal careers of men who have given so much to their nation.

“This is wrong for national security,” Greitens said. “The only people who will benefit from destroying the combat capacity of Naval Special Operations are the Taliban, Russia, China and other adversaries around the world. This is also wrong at human level. These warriors have dedicated their lives to the nation, spent their youth and some of them their health defending this nation and now find themselves in trouble for no valid scientific, medical or military rationale. It is clear their out-of-control command is more concerned with political correctness than lethality, and thus is willing to squander national security and personal careers.”

Younts, a Pennsylvania-based lawyer, has been involved in defending service members for nearly two decades, and won an award as the top Air Force defense lawyer in the JAG corps. His work and writings have been showcased in the JAG corps official magazine.

Durbin runs the large evangelical Apologia Church in the Phoenix area and is best known for his ardent opposition to abortion. In 2017, he stirred criticism when he suggested abortion be treated the same as murder, which under some state laws is punishable by the death penalty. His position on abortion as a crime, however, got recent support when Pope Francis declared earlier this month that “abortion is murder.”

Durbin told Just the News he began ministering to Navy SEALs and other military members in recent weeks as they wrestled with the decision of whether to get the COVID-19 vaccine as mandated by the Pentagon. He said those he has counseled have a religious objection, are unable to speak publicly because of their allegiance to military discipline and know that even if they get a religious exemption they will be ending their SEAL careers if they refuse the shot under the current military position.

“These Navy SEALs are men of faith in Jesus Christ,” he said. “They feel as though they are being pushed to a decision between their faith in Christ, their commitments to God’s Law, and their desire to love their neighbors and uphold the principle of the preservation of human life versus their careers as Navy SEALs.”

He said the SEALs he is ministering to “are the epitome of silent professionals and they do not desire to nor can they speak for themselves.”


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: U.S. Navy SEALs conducted a number of exercises with the Bulgarian military in the Black Sea in 2018, a clear message to Russia that the U.S. was prepared to escalate asymmetrical warfare targeting the Crimean Peninsula. 

New Hampshire House Speaker Files Bill to Block Vaccine Mandate

September 22nd, 2021 by The Center Square

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.



New Hampshire House Speaker Sherman Packard is working on legislation that would ban state or local enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Packard, a Londonderry Republican, said his office is working on a bill that is aimed at blunting the impact of President Joe Biden’s new federal vaccine requirements to “prevent federal overreach, protect our citizens and prevent worker shortages should this mandate take place.”

“The end goal is to find a workable solution to this latest development out of Washington that is evolving as we learn more about the mandate,” Packard said in a statement to House GOP members. “We have made it clear that government mandates are not the path to success for vaccination rates and will only cause further division in this country.”

Packard urged constituents to reach out to congressional lawmakers and ask them to “speak out against this tyrannical policy that would displace thousands of workers and devastate our economy.”

Packard’s proposal, which was filed with the Office of Legislative Services, would need to be considered in the next legislative session that gets underway in January.

Biden’s mandate will require employers with more than 100 workers to require them to be vaccinated or tested for COVID-19 weekly. The new rules will apply to federal workers and contractors who do business with the federal government. Companies face fines of up to $14,000 per violation, Biden administration officials said.

The plan will also require vaccinations for about 17 million health care workers at hospitals and other facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding.

The White House estimates the mandates will affect as many as 100 million Americans who are still not vaccinated against the virus, including thousands of workers in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is not one of the 26 states that have a “state plan” agreement quote with the federal government requiring them to enforce workplace health and safety regulations.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu said he opposes Biden’s vaccine mandate and expects New Hampshire will eventually join legal challenges against the nationwide requirements.

The state’s Attorney General, John Formella, was one of 20 Republican attorneys general who wrote to Biden last week urging him to drop his vaccine requirement for employers, calling the plan “disastrous and counterproductive.”

New Hampshire, like most states, has seen an uptick in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, with active infections averaging about 400 per day, according to state health officials.

Only 54.3% of New Hampshire residents are fully vaccinated, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nearly 60% have had at least one shot, the agency says.


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 WikiWand

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.



Children’s Health Defense on Sept. 15 filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in support of a lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s interpretation of the state’s 2008 law mandating smart meters.

Eighty safe-technology and environmental organizations on Sept. 15 joined the amicus brief in the court case challenging the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (PAPUC) interpretation of Pennsylvania’s Act 129, a 2008 law to mandate smart meters and deny disability accommodation to people adversely affected by pulsed radio frequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless devices, including smart meters.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed the amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

An amicus brief is filed by non-parties to a litigation to provide information that has a bearing on the issues and assist the court in reaching the correct decision. It comes from the latin words amici curiae, which means “friend of the court.”

“Smart” wireless utility meters have been deployed in the U.S. for a decade, replacing the analog mechanical meters that for decades were used reliably and safely, and were read monthly by “meter readers.”

They were promoted as part of the 2008 stimulus program, as an investment in energy conservation.

Smart meters contain transmitting antennas that continuously communicate electric usage to the utility company in real time. They allow companies to “punish” users for using electricity during high demand periods and reward them for using it at less busy times.

Smart meters now leading cause of sickness, especially in children

A decade after they were introduced, there is little to no evidence smart meters saved any energy. Instead, ample evidence shows that consumers had to carry a rate hike to fund the ever-increasing costs of these meters.

False readings by the meters have resulted in much higher bills for consumers. The meters have caused fires and violated privacy rights by selling consumers’ usage data.

But by far the worst consequence of widespread use of smart meters is that they have become a leading cause of sickness in adults and children.

To support the claims of adverse effects from exposure to smart meters, the amicus brief filed by CHD included a statement by scientists with expert knowledge of the impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and RF on human health.

Cumulatively, these scientists have published hundreds of studies on RF/EMF effects and reviewed thousands of others. They explain how smart meters cause widespread sickness because of how they operate.

According to Erik Anderson, the expert engineer whose report was included with the amicus, smart meters contain transmitting antennas that wirelessly transmit the data to the utility companies. They pulse intense levels of RF radiation up to 190,000 times a day, some exceeding even Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) allowed levels.

The report explains how RF emissions from the antennas, and the spikes of RF frequencies created by the meter’s Switch Mode Power Supply’s alternating-current-to-direct-current conversion process enter the house’s electric wiring, transforming the entire house into an antenna.

Signers of the amicus brief argued these meters must not be forced on those who are affected from RF exposure, and these people should be provided instead with analog meters.

What’s at stake

The original case was filed in Pennsylvania by four consumers who are suffering adverse reactions from exposure to wireless radiation.

They asked to be accommodated and were refused by PECO, the local utility company, and later by the PAPUC.

The plaintiffs appealed to Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court, which had ruled in October 2010 that the law does not mandate smart meters. All parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which agreed to hear the appeals.

“The risk posed by this case to everyone is imminent,” said Dafna Tachover of We Are The Evidence. “The court’s decision will affect not only Pennsylvania residents, but will have far-reaching implications nationwide. If the position of consumers and safe-tech organizations is rejected, there is little doubt that industry will mandate smart meters across the country.”

In fact, the push by utility companies to mandate smart meters has been growing, as these meters are part of “Smart Grid” and the “Internet-of-Things” network.

‘Tremendous health improvements’ after smart meters removed

The nationwide rollout of smart meters is based on the assumption they are safe because they comply with the FCC guidelines.

However, the amicus brief refers to the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in CHD’s case challenging the FCC’s 2019 decision that the commission’s 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies.

On Aug. 13, the court ruled against the FCC, stating the commission’s decision was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.

Signers of the amicus brief argue that as a result of Aug. 13 ruling, although the FCC guidelines are still in effect, they cannot be considered an assurance of safety, and therefore the meters cannot be regarded as safe.

CHD also revealed in the brief that the FCC admitted to adverse neurological responses from RF frequencies, including frequencies in the range emitted by the smart meter SMPS (2-50 KHz).

The symptoms referenced by the FCC are similar to the symptoms reported by people who claim to suffer adverse effects from the smart meters. Symptoms include tingling, a feeling of electric shocks, sleep and cognitive problems.

The amicus brief also includes a statement signed by 57 physicians who jointly treat more than 3,000 patients adversely affected by exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure.

Most of these patients suffer from electrosensitivity (also known as radiation/microwave sickness), a condition in which people develop various symptoms, mainly neurological, as a result of exposure to this radiation. The physicians explain the effects of smart meters on their patients.

The leading signer of the amicus brief (besides CHD) is the Building Biology Institute, which certifies experts in mitigating EMFs. The organization works with doctors and patients to remediate exposures in patients’ homes.

Building Biology Institute President Larry Gust explained that the organization’s experts have witnessed both the widespread sickness created by smart meters and the tremendous health improvements after these meters are removed.

Regarding the interpretation of Pennsylvania’s 2008 Act 129, CHD argued the PAPUC’s interpretation of the law is false, claiming the statute (which is an opt-in statute) cannot be read to contain a universal mandate, and that it clearly envisions customer consent.

The brief states “regardless of the legislature’s word choice,” the state cannot lawfully force a customer to accept a smart or digital meter when mandatory installation results in disability discrimination, exacerbates existing impairments or forces people to abandon their home. It also argues there must be effective accommodation.

CHD contends neither the PAPUC nor the utility company can or should second-guess a treating physician’s finding of impairment and the need for RF exposure avoidance, and that to do so is prohibited by disability laws.

The amicus brief states:

“The impaired cannot be required to endure interminable and expensive proceedings that require them to meet an irrelevant and almost impossible evidentiary burden when the accommodation itself costs less than $100.”

The amicus brief effort was led by attorneys Dafna Tachover, CHD Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Scott McCollough and Pennsylvania local counsel, Andrea Shaw.


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 80 Groups, 57 Doctors, 19 Scientists Join CHD in Urging Pennsylvania to Reject ‘Smart Meters’ Mandate
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Morrison’s Dangerous Fantasies Represent a Danger to Australia’s Future

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.



Nature charity WWF has called on the UK Government to ensure that UK banks and other financiers are not funding deforestation in Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere around the world.

The charity said that 300 UK-based financiers are directly providing £40 billion in funding to companies that threaten Brazilian and Indonesian rainforests. The funding is provided through both investments and loans, WWF said.

Many of the companies are involved in the production of beef, palm oil, soy and cocoa, agricultural commodities whose farming threaten rainforests.


Other common crops include timber, paper and rubber, all of which are helping to drive the destruction of nature in some of the world’s most diverse habitats.

“Deforestation is one of the biggest threats to our climate, to wildlife and to the local people who rely on forests for their livelihoods,” said Karen Ellis, director of sustainable economy at WWF-UK.

“Every hectare of rainforest that is destroyed makes it harder to limit global warming to below the 1.5C target set out in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Alarmingly, UK investments in forest-risk commodities have not significantly reduced since then.”

The UK currently has no laws that require products to come from sustainable sources. Any such efforts are made voluntarily, which WWF says leaves the UK’s supply chains exposed to deforestation.

It called on the government to develop a system for ensuring that UK financiers check they are not causing deforestation elsewhere as the country tries to reach net zero by 2050. Voluntary commitments are not enough, the charity said.


“The UK Government committed to protect forests and address nature loss impacts from financial decision-making – we won’t forget if they fail us on this promise,” Ms Ellis said.

“The Environment Bill will require companies trading in palm oil, soy, and other forest-risk commodities to undertake due diligence checks.

“This must equally apply to firms that finance forest-risk commodities, as voluntary measures clearly aren’t giving forests the protection they urgently need.”

The Treasury said:

“We are committed to the UK being the best place in the world for green and sustainable investment and were the first country in the world to commit to fully mandatory reporting by businesses across the economy on the financial risks posed by climate change.

“Our new integrated sustainability disclosure requirements go further by requiring companies, pension schemes, financial services firms and their investment products to report on the impact they are having on the climate and environment, helping to ensure investors have the information they need to drive positive environmental impact.”


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.

August Graham is the City reporter for PA.

Featured image is from Flickr, Peter Prokosch

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.



University of Guelph
50 Stone Rd. E.
Guelph, ON,
N1E 2G1 

Dear Dr. Charlotte A.B. Yates, President and Vice-Chancellor, 

I will forewarn you that this is a lengthy letter. However, it only represents a fraction of the information that I would like to be able to share with you. I have found it necessary to write this so you can fully understand my perspective. With my life and that of my family, many friends and treasured colleagues being destroyed under your watch, I figure the least you can do is read and consider this very carefully. It is incredible to note that many, if not most, of my on-campus detractors have judged me without reading any of my scientific arguments or talking to me about them. 

The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate at the University of Guelph 

You issued a mandate that everyone within the University of Guelph community must receive a COVID-19 vaccine. I have spent most of my lifetime learning to be a very deep and critical thinker and to follow the weight of scientific evidence. I am a well-recognized expert in vaccinology. As per my extensive funding, research, publication, and teaching records, I am a vaccine lover and an innovator in this field. I promote highly effective vaccines that have undergone extensive, rigorous, and proper safety testing as the most efficient type of medicines that exist. Vaccines that meet these criteria have prevented a vast amount of mortality and morbidities around the world. However, I could not be in stronger disagreement with you forcing the current COVID-19 vaccines upon everyone who is part of our campus community. I respect the challenges that a university president faces when trying to manage a large and dynamic academic institution. However, your roots are as a scholar. As a publicly funded institution of advanced learning, it is incumbent on us to demonstrate an ability to view the world around us in a constructively critical fashion such that we can improve the lives of others. We should be able to do this free of political or financial pressures and without bias or prejudice or fear of censorship and harassment. As a viral immunologist that has been working on the front lines of the scientific and medical community throughout the duration of the declared COVID-19 pandemic, I feel compelled to speak on behalf of the many who will not, due to extreme fear of retribution. We now live in a time when it is common practice for people to demand and expect to receive confidential medical information from others. I will not be coerced into disclosing my private medical information. However, for the sake of highlighting some of the absurdities of COVID-19 vaccine mandates I choose, of my own free will, to freely disclose some of my medical information here… 

Those with Naturally Acquired Immunity Don’t Need to be Vaccinated and are at Greater Risk of Harm if Vaccinated 

I participated in a clinical trial that has been running for approximately 1.5 years. The purpose is to develop a very sensitive and comprehensive test of immunity against SARS-CoV-2; in large part to inform the development of better COVID-19 vaccines (see this). My personal results prove that I have naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2. With this test, spots indicate a positive result for antibodies against a particular part of the virus. Darker spots correlate with more antibodies. Antibody responses correlate with the induction of memory B cells. Antibodies will wane over time, but B cells can survive for many years and rapidly produce massive quantities of antibodies upon re-exposure to a pathogen. On the following page are my results, along with a map of which part of the virus each spot represents… 

The dark spot at position D26 is the positive control and indicates that the assay worked. My results demonstrate that I have broad immunity against multiple components of SARS-CoV-2, including the spike protein. Importantly, spot B26 shows that I have antibodies against the membrane protein. This protein is not highly conserved across coronaviruses. As such, it provides evidence that I was infected with SARS-CoV-2. Note that I was sick only once since the pandemic was declared. It was a moderately severe respiratory infection that took ~four weeks to recover from. The SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was negative, despite being run at an unreasonably high number of cycles. This suggests that I was one of the many for whom SARS-CoV-2 has proven to be of low pathogenicity or not even a pathogen (i.e. no associated disease). There is a plethora of scientific literature demonstrating that naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is likely superior to that conferred by vaccination only. Indeed, it is much broader, which means that emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 will have more difficulty evading it as compared to the very narrow immunity conferred by the vaccines. Importantly, the duration of immunity (i.e. how long a person is protected) has proven to be far longer than that generated by the current vaccines. The duration of immunity for the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines appears to be a horrifically short ~4.5 months. I actually wrote a lay article back in February 2021 to explain why a vaccine of this nature would fail to be able to achieve global herd immunity on its own (See this). This is why places like Canada, the USA, and Israel have found it necessary to roll out third doses. And now there is talk (and a commitment in Israel) to roll out fourth doses (yes, that’s four doses within one year). The World Health Organization recognized the value of natural immunity quite some time ago. Unfortunately, in Canada and at the University of Guelph, we have failed to recognize that the immune system works as it was designed to. Its ability to respond is not limited solely to vaccines. Here are some references to support this: 1; 2; 3. 

As someone who develops vaccines, I can tell you that it is difficult to make a vaccine that will perform as poorly as the current COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed, most vaccines given in childhood never require a booster shot later in life. The take-home message here is that people like me, who have naturally acquired immunity, do not need to be vaccinated. Nor is it needed to protect those around the person who already has immunity. Worse, research from three independent groups has now demonstrated that those with naturally acquired immunity experience more severe side-effects from COVID-19 vaccines than those who were immunologically naïve prior to vaccination (See this; this; and this). In other words, for those with natural immunity, vaccination is not only unnecessary, but it would put them at enhanced risk of harm. Knowing this, nobody should ever mandate COVID-19 vaccination. Instead, it would be in the best interest of helping everyone make the most informed health decisions for themselves to make voluntary testing for immunity available. 

Testing for Naturally Acquired Immunity was a Viable Option but was Ignored 

You and the provost met with me and two other colleagues back in March 2021 and we presented the opportunity for the University of Guelph to show leadership and offer testing for immunity to our campus community in support of a safe return to in-person teaching and learning. You embraced this idea with enthusiasm and promised to move forward with it. This did not materialize so one of my colleagues contacted you. Once again, you agreed it was an excellent idea and that you would move forward with it. Nothing happened. So, my two colleagues and I met with one of our vice-presidents in May 2021. They also thought that making an antibody test available was an excellent idea and promised to work on getting it implemented on campus. Nothing materialized. They were contacted again by one of my colleagues. There was no response. There is no excuse for forcing vaccines on people, especially after having been given the opportunity to implement testing for immunity and refusing to do so. 

The University of Guelph won’t pay for me to receive a booster vaccine against rabies unless I can demonstrate that my antibodies are below what has been deemed to be a protective titer. This is because it would not be appropriate to give me a vaccine that is not without risk if I don’t need it. Also, the university does not want to pay the ~$850 cost of the vaccination regimen unless I absolutely need it. In short, you will not allow me to receive that booster vaccine without first evaluating me on an annual basis for evidence of immunity (or lack thereof). So why was this principle rejected for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, for which there is vastly less reliable safety data available, and none for the long-term? Canada should have been acquiring data about immunity starting a long time ago. It is a particularly poor precedent for a university to reject the concept of acquiring data that could inform safer and more effective COVID-19 policies. Immunity testing would even benefit vaccinated individuals. It is well known that responses to vaccines in outbred populations follows a normal curve and includes individuals that are non-responders (i.e. they are left without immunity and are, therefore, unprotected following vaccination) and low-responders (insufficient protection). In fact, this concept has been the focus of an internationally recognized research program on our campus that has brought many accolades and awards to our institution. 

You have banned me from campus for at least the next year. I can show proof of immunity against SARS-CoV-2 but you will not allow me to enter buildings. But someone else can show a receipt saying that someone saw two needles go into their arm and you will allow them to enter. You actually have no idea if that person has immunity. There have even been reported cases of people accidentally or even intentionally (e.g. a case in Germany) being administered saline instead of the vaccine. Does it make sense to ban someone who is immune from campus but allow people who are presumed, but not confirmed, to be immune? This is a scenario that you have created. As a fellow academic, I am requesting that you provide me with a strong scientific rationale why you are allowing thousands with an unconfirmed immunity status onto our campus, but you are banning people like me who are known to have immunity. Further, please explain how you feel it is ethical to force COVID-19 vaccines on people who are uncomfortable with being coerced when you do not know their immunity status. Despite attempts to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2 via masking and physical distancing, the reality is that the virus has not complied with these attempts to barricade it. Indeed, it has infected many people across Canada, many of whom may not have even realized it because it is not a dangerous pathogen for them. From the perspective of a medical risk-benefit analysis, this is a no-brainer. A medical procedure that adds no value but carries known and still-to-be-defined risks should never be mandated! 

The University Back-Tracked on Advice from its Own Legal Counsel 

I, along with two colleagues, attended a meeting with one of our vice-presidents in May 2021. In that meeting the legal advice that was provided to the University of Guelph was disclosed. We were told this included making COVID-19 vaccines voluntary, that nobody on campus should be made to feel coerced into being vaccinated, and that nobody should feel pressured to disclose their vaccination status. On this basis, I was to serve as one of the on-campus faculty contacts for anyone who experienced any of these issues. Did Canada’s laws change during the summer in a way that rendered this legal advice no longer valid? Now I am having to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to help the many people whose lives have imploded due to the university’s vaccine mandate. 

I am a Scientist Who is Knowledgeable and Values Integrity Despite What So-Called ‘Fact Checkers’ Have Claimed 

There are many on our campus who repeatedly put my name out to the public with claims that I disseminate misinformation. Not one of these individuals has ever given me the courtesy of a conversation prior to publicly attacking me. None of them will engage me in public discussions of the science to allow people to judge the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of what I am saying. Censorship on our campus has become as prevalent as it is off-campus. My detractors, rather than showing a deep understanding of the science underlying COVID-19 vaccines, continually refer to the so-called ‘fact checks’ that have been posted about me. Let me tell you some things about the so-called ‘fact checkers’. Firstly, they give scientists and physicians of integrity unreasonably short periods of time to respond to their requests for answers. For example, as I write this letter, I have 13,902 unread messages in my inbox and my voice mail is at maximum capacity. I have yet to see a ‘fact check’ request prior to its expiry, which remarkably, is often within mere hours of an e-mail being sent. This is an unreasonable expectation from a busy professional. Also, many ‘fact checkers’ lack sufficient expertise. In some cases, ‘fact checker’ sites have had to rely on postdoctoral trainees in other countries to write responses. 

Most of the harassment against me began after ‘fact checkers’ cherry-picked one short radio interview that I gave to a lay audience. Some have accused me of only giving half the story in that interview. They were most kind; I was only able to reveal ~0.5% of the story. It is unfair to critique a tiny portion of one’s arguments that were presented off-the-cuff to a lay audience with no opportunity for me to respond in real-time. For your information, I have rebutted every single one of the ‘fact checks’ that I am aware of in various public interviews. Let me give you one example that some of our colleagues on our campus have repeatedly misused while harassing me in social media… 

One of the many issues that I have raised with the vaccines is that should a reasonable concentration of the free spike protein get into systemic circulation, it could potentially harm the endothelial cells lining our blood vessels. I cited this study. The authors were contacted, and they claimed I had misinterpreted the study. They said that spike-specific antibodies would mop up any spike proteins in the blood, thereby protecting the blood vessels. They argued that this demonstrated that vaccinating people against the spike protein is a good thing. However, the authors are not immunologists and they failed to recognize the limitations of their own study in drawing these kinds of conclusions. Specifically, they did not recognize that in a naïve individual receiving a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, there are no antibodies; either pre-existing in the host, or in the vaccine formulation. In fact, it will take many days for the antibody response to be induced and for titers to begin reaching substantial concentrations. This leaves a large window of time in which any free spike proteins could exert their biological functions/harm in the body before there are any antibodies to neutralize them. Worse, most of the spike proteins should be expressed by our own cells. In that case, the antibodies will target and kill them in a form of autoimmunity. The authors of the paper forgot that their model was in the context of natural infection, where vaccination would precede exposure to SARS-CoV-2. In that case, I agree that there would be pre-existing antibodies that could neutralize spike proteins of viral origin entering the circulation. This was perceived to be one of the ‘strongest’ arguments used by others to try to discredit me. The reality is that it is completely incorrect and represents an embarrassing misinterpretation by the authors of the original paper and the many ‘fact-checkers’ that believed them without question. 

Criminal Harassment 

You have allowed colleagues to harass me endlessly for many consecutive months. They have lied about me, called me many names, and have even accused me of being responsible for deaths. I submitted a harassment claim and your administrators ruled that it did not meet the bar of civil harassment. In stark contrast, I have been contacted by members of off-campus policing agencies who have told me that it exceeds the minimum bar of criminal harassment. I am sorry, but a faculty member can only take so much bullying and see such a lack of adherence to scientific and bioethical principles before it becomes necessary to speak up. Under your watch, you have allowed my life to be ruined by turning a blind eye to on-campus bullying, ignoring our campus principles of promoting mental well-being and a workplace in which I can feel safe. In addition to this you have banned me from the campus because I have robust, broadly protective, and long-lasting immunity against SARS-CoV-2 but lack a piece of paper suggesting that it was obtained via two injections. Did you see this front page of one of Canada’s major newspapers?… 

…remarkably, the on-campus COVID-19 policies you are promoting fuel this kind of pure hatred from people, most of whom have not confirmed their own immunity status, against someone like me who is immune to SARS-CoV-2!!! Does that make any sense? My workplace has become a poisoned environment where the bullying, harassment, and hatred against me have been incessant. Are you ever going to put an end to the childish and irrational behaviours being demonstrated by our colleagues? I have received thousands of emails from around the world that indicate the university should be embarrassed and ashamed to allow such childish behaviour from faculty members to go unchecked in front of the public. I have invested a decade of my life into the University of Guelph. I have conducted myself professionally and worked to an exceptionally high standard. I have consistently received excellent ratings for my research, teaching, and service. I have received rave reviews from students for my teaching. I have received prestigious research and teaching awards. I have brought funding to our campus from agencies that had never partnered with the University of Guelph in our institution’s history. I have brought in ~$1 million-worth of equipment to improve our infrastructure, etc., etc. I am a man of integrity and a devoted public servant. I want to make Canada a better place for my family and for my fellow Canadians. We are a public institution. My salary is covered by taxpayers. This declared pandemic involves science that is in my ‘wheelhouse’. Since the beginning, I have made myself available to answer questions coming from the public in a fashion that is unbiased and based solidly on the ever-exploding scientific literature. My approach has not changed. Has some of it contradicted the very narrow public health narrative carried by mainstream media? Yes. Does that make it wrong? No. I will stand by my track record. When Health Canada authorized the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine I, along with two colleagues, wrote an open letter requesting that this vaccine not be used, in part on the grounds that it was being investigated for a link to potentially fatal blood clots in many European countries. I was accused at that time by so-called ‘fact checkers’ of providing misinformation. Less than two months later, Canada suspended the AstraZeneca vaccination program because it was deemed to be too unsafe as a result of causing blood clots that cost the unnecessary loss of lives of Canadians. More recently, I was heavily criticized for raising concerns in a short radio interview about a potential link between the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and heart inflammation in young people, especially males. This is now a well-recognized problem that has been officially listed as a potential side-effect of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It was also the subject of a recent Public Health Ontario Enhanced Epidemiological Summary Report highlighting the increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis to young males following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. As such, I have a proven track record of accurately identifying concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines. 

A Lack of Safety Data in Pregnant Females as Another Example of Why Vaccines Should Not be Mandated 

I would like to give another disconcerting safety-related example of why a COVID-19 vaccine mandate could be dangerous. We have pregnant individuals or those who would like to become pregnant on campus. There was a highly publicized study in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine that formed the foundation of declaring COVID-19 vaccines safe in pregnant females (See this). The authors of this study declared that there was no risk of increased miscarriage to vaccinated females. This study resulted in many policies being instituted to promote vaccination of this demographic, for which the bar for safety should be set extremely high. Did you know that this apparent confirmation of safety had to be rescinded recently because the authors performed an obvious mathematical error? I witnessed several of my colleagues from Canada and other countries bravely push for a review of this paper under withering negative pressures. Once the editor finally agreed to do so, the authors had no choice but to admit that made a mathematical error. Most of the world does not realize this. This admission of using an inappropriate mathematical formula can be found here. This means that the major rationale for declaring COVID-19 vaccines safe in pregnant females is gone! How can someone force a COVID-19 vaccine on a pregnant female when there are insufficient safety data available to justify it? 

Advocating for the Vulnerable and Those Fearful of Retribution 

My concern is not primarily for myself. I am using my case to highlight how wrong your vaccine mandate is. I am more concerned for the more vulnerable on our campus. I hold tenure, and if ever there was a time when this was important, it is now. However, I have had to bear witness to numerous horrible situations for students and staff members. Students have been physically escorted off our campus, sometimes being removed from their residence, sometimes with their parents also being escorted off. Staff members have been escorted off campus and immediately sent home on indefinite leaves without pay, leaving them unable to adequately care for their families. In many of these situations it seemed like the interactions intentionally occurred in very public settings with it being made clear to all onlookers that the person or people were not vaccinated. Parents have been denied attending meetings with their children who are entering the first year of a program. They recognize that adult learners would normally not have their parents accompany them, but we are living in unusual times with excessive and unfair (arguably illegal?) pressures being applied and these parents are entitled to advocate and defend the best interests of their sons and daughters. Many students have deferred a year in the desperate hope that our campus community will not be so draconian next year. Others fought hard to earn their way into very competitive programs and are not being guaranteed re-entry next year. Many faculty members refused to offer on-line learning options for those who did not wish to be vaccinated. On the flip-side, there are also faculty members, like many students and staff, who are completely demoralized. This includes some who were happily vaccinated but are upset by the draconian measures of your COVID-19 policies and/or will be unwilling to receive future booster shots. I can tell you many stories of students and staff members who couldn’t resist the pressure to get vaccinated because they were losing vast amounts of sleep and experiencing incredible anxiety and were on the verge of mental and/or physical breakdowns. In some of these cases, they were crying uncontrollably before, during, and after their vaccination, which they only agreed to under great duress. This does not represent informed consent! I have had several members of our campus community contact me with concerns that they may have suffered vaccine-induced injuries ranging from blood clots to chest pain to vision problems to unexpected and unusual vaginal bleeding. Can I prove these were due to the vaccine? No. But can anyone prove they were not? No. And it is notable that these are common events reported in adverse event reporting systems around the world. In all cases, the attending physicians refused to report these events, even though it is supposed to be a current legal requirement to do so. These people obediently got vaccinated and were then abandoned when they became cases that did not help sell the current public health messaging. 

A World Where Everyone is Vaccinated Looks Nothing Like Normal 

The two-week lockdown that was supposed to lead into learning to live with SARS-CoV-2 has turned into the most mismanaged crisis in the history of our current generations. I ask you to look around with a very critical eye. You just reported that 99% of the campus community is vaccinated. Congratulations, you have far exceeded the stated standard for what is apparently the new goal of ‘herd vaccination’. I cannot use the typical term ‘herd immunity’ here because immunity is not being recognized as legitimate; only inferred immunity based on receiving two needles counts. We were told that achieving herd immunity by vaccination alone was the solution to this declared pandemic. This has been achieved on our campus in spades. I sat in on our town hall meetings with our local medical officer of health who confidently told us that the risk of breakthrough infections in the vaccinated was almost zero. Why, then are people so petrified of the unvaccinated. Look at vaccines for travellers going to exotic locations. 

These are vaccines of some quality. Travellers take these vaccines, and not only do they not avoid the prospective pathogen, but they happily travel to the location where it is endemic (i.e. they enthusiastically enter the danger zone because they are protected). So, what does our campus look like with almost every person vaccinated? Everyone must remain masked and physically distanced. There is no gathering or loitering allowed in stairwells or any open spaces in buildings or outside. People are still being told which doors to enter and exit, when they can do so, where to stand in line, when to move. Incredibly, time restrictions are even being implemented in some eating areas because some students were deemed to be “snacking too long” with their masks off and, therefore, putting others at risk of death. In short, the on-campus COVID-19 policies are even more draconian than they were last year, but everyone is vaccinated. It doesn’t seem like the vaccines are working very well when a fully vaccinated campus cannot ease up on restrictions. But, of course, we already know how poorly these vaccines are performing. Based on fundamental immunological principles, parenteral administration of these vaccines provides robust enough systemic antibody responses to allow these antibodies to spill over into the lower respiratory tract, which is a common point at which pathogens can enter systemic circulation due to the proximity of blood vessels to facilitate gas exchange. However, they do not provide adequate protection to the upper respiratory tract, like natural infection does, or like an intranasal or aerosolized vaccine likely would. As such, people whose immunity has been conferred by a vaccine only are often protected from the most severe forms of COVID-19 due to protection in the lower lungs, but they are also susceptible to proliferation of the virus in the upper airways, which causes them to shed equivalent quantities of SARS-CoV-2 as those who completely lack immunity. Dampened disease with equal shedding equals a phenotype that approaches that of a classic super-spreader; something that we erroneously labeled healthy children as until the overwhelming scientific evidence, which matches our historical understanding, clarified that this was not the case. I have been in meetings where faculty have demanded to know who the unvaccinated students will be in their classes so they can make them sit at the back of the classroom! I can’t believe that some of my colleagues are thinking of resorting to the type of segregation policies that heroes like Viola Desmond, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Carrie M. Best, and Lulu Anderson fought so hard against so many years ago. 

The Exemption Fiasco 

With respect to exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines, the University of Guelph provided a number based on creed or religion but then, remarkably, rescinded these. These previously exempt individuals were required to resubmit applications using a more onerous form; many that had been honoured previously were rejected upon re-submission. Many have been rejected since. Based on the reports I have received from many people these rejections of exemption requests were typically not accompanied by explanations. Nor have many been told, despite asking, who it is that sits on the committee making decisions about these exemptions. I would never be allowed to assign marks to students anonymously, nor without being able to justify them. Yet there seems to be a lack of transparency with exemptions and many of these decisions are destroying people’s lives; the outcomes are not trivial. Could you please disclose the names of the people serving on the University of Guelph’s committee that reviews exemptions? Also, could this committee please provide to applicants, retroactively, comments to justify their decisions? I have even heard it said in recent meetings that a lot of people are happy to hear that exemptions, including some medical exemptions are being denied. Why are our faculty celebrating refusals of medical exemptions for students? 

A Lack of Consultation with the Experts on Vaccines 

You have stated on numerous occasions that your COVID-19 policies have only been implemented after extensive consultation with local and regional experts. Interestingly, however, you have refused, for some unknown reason, to consult with any of the senior non-administrative immunologists on your campus. I would like to remind you that vaccinology is a sub-discipline of immunology. Notably, all three of us have offered repeatedly to serve on COVID-19 advisory committees, both on-campus and for our local public health unit, which also lacks advanced training in immunology and virology. The three of us have stayed on top of the cutting-edge scientific findings relevant to COVID-19 and meeting regularly with many national and international collaborative groups of scientists and physicians to debate and discuss what we are learning. I think it is notable that the senior non-administrative immunologists unanimously agree that COVID-19 vaccines should not be mandated for our campus based on extensive, legitimate scientific and safety reasons. 

Mandating COVID-19 Vaccines is Criminal 

I am no legal expert but have consulted with many lawyers who have told me that these vaccine mandates break many existing laws. Here is one example copied from the Criminal Code of Canada: 


346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. 

In your case, you are demanding that members of our academic community submit to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine against their will (a medical procedure that may very well be unnecessary and carry enhanced risk of harm) or face banishment from the campus. Again, I am not an expert in this area, but I am confident there will be lawyers willing to test this in court. Those responsible for issuing vaccine mandates will need to decide how confident they are that they will not lose these legal battles. 

Integrity of Teaching 

In this new world where followers of scientific data are vilified, I also worry about my ability to teach with integrity. Unbelievably, the Minister of Health of Canada, Patty Hajdu, told Canadians that vitamin D being a critical and necessary component of the immune system in its ability to clear intracellular pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 is fake news! Do you now that I have taught all my students about the importance of vitamin D (often in the historical context of how it was discovered as being critical for positive outcomes in patients with tuberculosis that were quarantined in sanatoriums). I also teach the concept of herd immunity, with vaccination being a valuable tool to achieve this. I do not teach the concept of ‘herd vaccination’ while promoting ignorance of natural immunity. There are other basic immunological principles that I teach that have either not been recognized during the pandemic as legitimate scientific principles or they have been altogether contradicted by public health and/or government officials. Will I still be allowed to teach immunology according to the decades of scientific information that I have built my course upon? Or will I be disciplined for teaching immunological facts? There are many attempts to regulate what I can and cannot say these days, so these are serious questions. 

Instilling Fear of a Minority Group Breeds Hatred 

We live in an era where issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion are supposed to be at the forefront of all discussions at academic institutions. However, you are openly discriminating against and excluding a subset of our community that happens to be highly enriched with people engendered with critical thinking; a quality that we are supposed to be nurturing and promoting. With COVID-19 mandates, an environment has been created on our university campus that promotes hatred, bullying, segregation, and fear of a minority group whose only wrongdoing has been to maintain critical thinking and decision-making that is based on facts and common sense. I have yet to meet an anti-vaxxer on our campus. Everyone I know of is simply against the mismanagement of exceptionally poor-quality COVID-19 vaccines. History tells us that instilling fear of a minority group never ends well. This scenario must be rectified immediately if our campus is ever to return to a safe and secure working and learning environment for all. 

Committing to Abolishing the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 

President Yates, the favour of a reply is requested. Not the kind that defers to public health officials, or a committee, or anyone else. Instead, a reply with the scientific rigour expected from a scholarly colleague rebutting each of my comments and addressing each question. Surely, you know the science underpinning COVID-19 vaccines inside and out by now. I strongly suspect that nobody would made a decision that disrupts an entire community and destroys the lives of some of its members without a fully developed rationale that can point to the weight of the peer-reviewed scientific literature to back it up. If it would be easier, I would be happy to have an open and respectful, but public and blunt moderated conversation about your vaccine mandate in front of our campus community; much like in the spirit of old-fashioned, healthy scientific debates. You can have your scientific and medical advisors attend and I will invite an equal number. I am not saying this to be challenging. I honestly think it would be a great way to educate our campus community and expose them to the full spectrum of the science. And, if I am as wrong as my ‘fact checkers’ say, I would love for them to demonstrate this for my own sake as much as anyone else’s. So far, despite hundreds of invitations, not one person has done this in a scenario where I can respond in real-time. You need to understand; all I want is my life back and to be able to recognize my country again. I want to see the lives of the students, staff, and other faculty members that I have seen destroyed be restored again. I want to be able to return to my workplace and not be fearful of being hated or exposed to social, mental, and physical bullying. Instead, I want to be able to turn my talents and full attention back to being an academic public servant who can design better ways to treat diseases and help train Canada’s next generation of scientific and medical leaders. I simply cannot know all that I have shared in this letter and have suffered as much as I have and be silent about it. My great uncles and family members before them served heroically in the World Wars to ensure Canada would remain a great and free democracy. I think they would be horrified by what they see in Canada today. Indeed, many of my friends who immigrated from Communist countries or countries run by dictatorships are sharing fears about the direction our country is heading; it is reminding them of what they fled from. Further, mandating COVID-19 sets a scary precedent. Did you know that multiplex tests for both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses are on the horizon, along with dual-purpose vaccines that will use the same mRNA-based technology to simultaneously target SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses (See this). Rhetorically, will the University of Guelph consider masking, distancing, and/or mandating vaccines for influenza in the future? Please rescind your COVID-19 vaccine mandate immediately. It is doing more harm than good. Unbelievably, among many other problems, it is even discriminating against those who can prove they are immune to SARS-CoV-2! 

Mandating COVID-19 Vaccines Creates Absurd Situations 

In closing, and to highlight the absurdity of mandating COVID-19 vaccines… 

President Yates, I have proven to you that I am immune to SARS-CoV-2, but you have banned me from the campus and ruined my life because I don’t have a piece of paper saying that someone saw two needles go into my shoulder. You have a piece of paper that says that someone saw two needles go into your shoulder, but you have not proven that you are immune to SARS-CoV-2. However, you are allowed on campus and your life can proceed uninterrupted. How is that fair? 

Respectfully and in the mutual interest of the health and well-being of all members of our community, 

Dr. Byram W. Bridle, PhD 
Associate Professor of Viral Immunology
Department of Pathobiology
University of Guelph 


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 Mercola

Congress Wants to Put Even More Troops in Russia’s Backyard

September 22nd, 2021 by Prof. Anatol Lieven

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 “Sustaining Deterrence in Europe” amendment inserted with bipartisan support into the Defense Authorization Act 2022, represents the very worst of congressional intervention in foreign and security policy.

The key passage of the amendment, which was introduced by Rep Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, reads as follows:

“The [House Armed Services] Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the service secretaries, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 15, 2022, on the Department’s strategy for enhancing the United States forward presence on NATO’s eastern periphery, to include assessments of possibilities for potential force structure enhancements at a minimum in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, along with options for enhanced deterrent posture in Ukraine.”

The amendment is justified, according to supporters, by the need for deterrence against “Russian aggression on NATO’s eastern flank.” This embodies a willful confusion of interests, with Ukraine on the one hand, and existing NATO members on the other. In Ukraine, a frozen separatist conflict with Russian involvement is indeed ongoing, together with the territorial dispute over Crimea. These are, however, the kind of issues all too typical in the aftermath of the fall of empires. They stem from the twin issues of minority rights and historically disputed borders (Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until it was transferred to Ukraine by Soviet decree in 1954).

No politician or member of the U.S. foreign and security establishment has ever even attempted to explain why Russian involvement in Ukraine — with its territorial issues, its huge Russian minority, and deep historic, cultural, and emotional ties to one another — somehow implies Moscow’s desire to attack Poland or Romania, which contain no Russian minorities or territorial disputes. The justification for this belief in the Washington establishment is instead based on little more than memories of the 1940s, together with an assumption of innate, blind Russian tendencies to aggression.

Moreover, as far as Ukraine itself is concerned, the suggestion of a resemblance between U.S. “deterrence” there and deterrence in Poland and Romania is based on a very dangerous misconception. Romania, Poland, and the Baltic States are NATO members, covered by the Article 5 guarantee in the NATO Treaty whereby the United State is legally obliged to fight for them if they are attacked.

Ukraine is not a NATO member, and even if a U.S. administration were willing to make an immediate offer of membership, this would certainly be blocked by the other European NATO partners. The United States is not therefore legally bound to defend Ukraine, and already proved in 2014 that it would not in fact do so in any conflict with Russia (just as it failed to fight for Georgia in 2008). A promise of U.S. “deterrence” in Ukraine is therefore essentially a lie — and a very dangerous one, if a Ukrainian government were to believe it and act accordingly.

The Baltic States are in a somewhat special category. Unlike Poland and Romania, they were part of the USSR and they contain large Russian ethnic minorities. However, no territorial dispute exists between Russia and the Baltic States. Russia has certainly complained strongly against the partial disenfranchisement of these minorities in Latvia and Estonia (contrary to both promises made to Russia before independence and to basic principles of the European Union), but it has never on any occasion threatened to invade them. There have been cyber-attacks, probably with Russian state backing or encouragement — but these cannot be deterred by stationing U.S. troops in the Baltic. Nor have the Baltics given Russia any excuse to invade, because ethnic relations there, though sometimes tense, have always been overwhelmingly peaceful.

And once again, nobody in Washington who has written on potential Russian aggression against NATO members has ever explained what Russia could possibly hope to gain from such an attack, and whether any benefit would outweigh the immense risks and losses involved: the danger of nuclear war, shattering economic crisis, crippling sanctions, a consolidation of the U.S.-European alliance against Russia, and the end of Russian gas exports to Europe.

And for what? Occupied territories constantly roiled by massive public unrest or even guerrilla warfare, and the expenditure of colossal amounts of money that Russia does not have? If Soviet proxies failed to govern the Baltic States and Eastern Europe in the 1980s, why on earth would Moscow think that it could govern these countries today? It cannot be stated too strongly: the idea of a Russian conventional attack on NATO is the product of a combination of sincere paranoia and cynical military-industrial manipulation in the West; while other forms of “non-conventional” Russian pressure cannot by definition be deterred by new U.S. conventional forces.

The other failing of this amendment is the complete indifference to how Russia would respond to an increased U.S. military force on its borders.  Indeed, the rhetoric of innate Russian aggression is intended (consciously or unconsciously) to make such concern unnecessary, for if Russia’s character is fixed and unchanging, then nothing that the United States or NATO do will have any new effect one way or the other.

The truth is of course quite otherwise. Russia’s security establishment is just as paranoid as America’s, and with rather more reason. American forces in the Baltic States are within 85 miles of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city. Strategically speaking, it is the equivalent of Russian forces stationing themselves in Canada. Of course, the United States has no plan actually to attack Russia, but can we seriously expect the Russians to take that on trust? Would Americans do so if the position were reversed?

And the combination of paranoia with U.S. troops on Russia’s border vastly increases the chances of some disastrous accident. We need to remember in this context General Mark Milley’s call to China before the last U.S. elections to reassure a nervous Beijing that America had no plans to attack them, and the genuine belief of the Soviet leadership in 1983 (revealed by  KGB defector Oleg Gordievesky) that NATO Operation Able Archer was cover for an impending nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

To gratuitously ratchet up tension with Russia, as the Rogers amendment proposes, is therefore deeply foolish in itself. To do so in the context of deepening tensions between America and China is idiocy squared. It violates the most fundamental rule of strategy, which is to divide, not unite potential enemies.

For up to now, despite all the tensions and the bluster on both sides, the United States and Russia have carefully avoided any direct military clash between them. If the stationing of U.S. troops on Russia’s borders led to even a very limited clash, this would inevitably result in a huge new deployment of U.S. forces to Europe, at vast expense — it’s impossible to imagine a greater strategic gift to Beijing. On the assumption that the National Defense Authorization Act is not being designed to serve the interests of China, let us hope that this amendment will be excluded from the Act when it is eventually passed.


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: DRAWSKO POMORSKIE TRAINING AREA, Poland–NATO allies train together during the preparation phase of Exercise Steadfast Jazz here Nov. 2, 2013. (U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Alexander Jansen/54th Engineer Bn)

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 Tuesday, September 21, Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Armed Force (FANB) denounced  the illegal entry into Venezuelan airspace of a remotely manned Hermes drone belonging to the Colombian Air Force.

Through a statement, the FANB indicated that the infraction was recorded on Monday, September 20, at 4:48 p.m., when the aircraft in question was detected flying over the territory of Jesús María Semprúm municipality, in the state of Zulia, by the scanning systems of the Comprehensive Aerospace Defense Command of Venezuela.

The FANB assured that this action constitutes a threat to the security of the nation, since the Hermes is a military aircraft used for aerial reconnaissance missions.

Likewise, it pointed out that the violation of Venezuelan territory coincides with the visit of the head of the United States Southern Command, Admiral Craig Faller, to Colombia, supposedly to discuss “cooperation in security matters.”

“We are seeing clear indications of a stratagem by the North American empire and the Colombian government, its unworthy and unconditional ally in the region, to build some of their well-known false positives, or any type of incident that would allow them to continue generating instability, and in a particular way, to torpedo the process of dialogue that is currently taking place in Mexico in search of solutions to the country’s problems, and peace and unity for the entire Venezuelan people,” the FANB statement added.

Joe Biden attacks Venezuela at the United Nations

Meanwhile this Tuesday, US President Joe Biden complained that there are countries that still have “authoritarianism” and which, according to his definition, do not constitute democracies. Biden referred to Burma, Syria, Belarus, Cuba and Venezuela.

The president’s statements were offered in his address to the 76th General Assembly of the United Nations (UN). He warned about a supposed lack of freedoms and claimed that democracy lives in those who fight for freedom in Cuba, Belarus or Venezuela.

For the embattled US president,

“the authoritarianism of the world may seek to proclaim the end of the age of democracy, but they’re wrong. The truth is, the democratic world is everywhere. It lives in the anti-corruption activists, the human rights defenders, the journalists, the peace protestors on the frontlines of this struggle in Belarus, Burma, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and everywhere in between.”

US journalist from The GrayZone, Ben Norton, put it this way:

“At the UN, President Biden blatantly lied, claiming, ‘For the first time in 20 years, the US is not at war.’ False. The Biden admin has bombed Syria, Iraq, Somalia, backing Saudi bombing of Yemen. The US is militarily occupying Syria and Iraq, and waging economic war everywhere.”

Norton added:

“In his UN speech, President Biden also singled out ‘Belarus, Burma [Myanmar], Syria, Cuba, Venezuela’—all targets of US regime-change operations. This was a clear threat. Washington aims to overthrow all of those countries’ independent governments, through hybrid warfare.”


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

Incisive article by Dr. Rudolph Haensel first published in April 2020 in the immediate wake of the March 11, 2020 lockdown.


Autonomy is the state and attitude to life of self-determination, independence (sovereignty) and self-administration. Philosophically, it is the ability to see oneself as a being of freedom and to act from this freedom. It is also the power to not participate (Adorno). Natural Law says that there is something that is right by nature. It differs from the so-called Positive Right established by man in that man is entitled to it simply because he is human.

Since it is not created by any ruler or any kind of majority decision, it is pre-state law. This means that the laws of a state must be measured critically against natural law. (1) The knowledge of what is right by nature enables us to oppose totalitarian ideologies and dictatorships from a firm human standpoint, to feel a sense of indignation against injustice and inhumanity, even if the whole of society may cheer a dictator.

What is natural law?

Thinking in terms of natural law has its origins in ancient Greek philosophy, especially in Plato’s confrontation with the Sophists. Plato held against them that there are objective, absolutely valid norms, values and laws that do not depend on the changing opinions of people. It is by these objective ideas of what law is that the state and the state leadership must be measured at all times. Plato saw behind the law the objective idea of justice.

The highest goal in human life is a life governed by reason, and man can only achieve this if he learns in childhood and youth to moderate his desires and affects. He must learn to keep the golden rule of the middle (justice, bravery and prudence). If this does not become a habit in childhood and adolescence, he will later be torn to and fro by extreme affects and will never achieve a virtuous, level-headed, rational lifestyle (prudence).

The great teacher of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, combined Aristotle’s philosophy with the Christian philosophy and theology that came from Augustine. He thus had outstanding significance for the development of Christian natural law, Christian anthropology and theology, in the centre of which man as a person is placed. The order of being created by God is perfectly good. In it the “eternal law”, lex aeterna, was at work. This is the divine wisdom, as the supreme law. Man can recognize a part of this eternal law through his reason. (2)

Man has a natural inclination for goodness, which is “written in his heart” by the eternal law. It helps him to better recognize what is right in nature. The essential natural inclinations of man are those for the knowledge of the truth and for community life. With his reason, man can recognize the laws of nature and thus grasp the order created by God.

Human dignity is inviolable

Article 1 of the German Basic Law (GG) states:

“The dignity of man is inviolable. Respecting and protecting it is the duty of all state power.”Paragraph 1 of Article 1 adds: “Human dignity is the supreme constitutional principle to which all public authorities must therefore orient their actions. It is therefore the yardstick for the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The state must refrain from any action that could affect human dignity.” (3)

And this human dignity is over positive law (Natural Law).

What is happening, however, not only in Germany but worldwide, is the opposite of what the German Basic Law demands. Human dignity is trampled underfoot – and this is reminiscent of the Germany of the 1930s, the rise of fascism. Every thinking and feeling fellow citizen can “feel it on his own body”.

We are no longer free and can no longer lead our lives self-determined and independently. The governments leave us no room for manoeuvre and deny us the vested right not to take part in this madness, to oppose the totalitarian machinations decisively and with all their willpower. The rule of law has died.

But our thoughts are free (Cicero) and nobody can take away our dignity. We can also find the courage to use our own intellect (Kant). And we know what is right by nature. Therefore we will not submit to the dictates of corrupt politicians, scientists, doctors, journalists or questionable patrons like Bill Gates. (4)

Already more than 100 years ago, the great Russian writer Leo N. Tolstoy put on record his assessment of rulers:

“One could still justify the subordination of an entire people to a few people if the rulers were the best people; but that is not the case, never was and never can be. It is often the worst, most insignificant, cruelest, most immoral and especially the most mendacious people who rule. And that this is so is not by chance.” (5)

The human community rightly expects science – including medicine – to alleviate the plight of people and to serve the protection of life. But more and more scientists are selling their knowledge and skills and often their souls to the military-industrial complex. They even distance themselves so far from their humanity that they help to perfect the means for the general destruction of mankind.

An important contribution to the enlightenment and encouragement of the people could be the mass media, since they are obliged to provide truthful information to us citizens and to peace, in accordance with national and international agreements. But the opposite is true. They are “in the service of warmongering and hate propaganda” and “in the service of stultifying the masses” (Bertha von Suttner).

Let us therefore preserve the attitude to life of self-determination, independence (sovereignty) and self-administration and the ability to see ourselves as beings of freedom and to act from this freedom.


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.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.


(1) Messner, J. (1984, 7th unchanged edition). Natural law. Handbook of Social Ethics, State Ethics and Business Ethics. Berlin

(2) en.wikipedia.org. Keyword “Natural Law

(3) Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany

(4) See NRhZ No 741 of 8.04.2020: ‘To the Final Battle!’.

(5) Tolstoy, Leo N. (1983). Speech against the war. Frankfurt am Main, p. 74

The Claim that COVID Jabs Are Safe and Effective Has Fallen Apart. “Forcing Employees to be Stabbed by Covid Jabs”

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 21, 2021

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.

Pfizer Admits Israel Is the Great COVID-19 Vaccine Experiment

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 21, 2021

According to a recent Israeli news report, which I posted on Twitter September 13, 2021, Pfizer admits it’s treating Israel as a unique “laboratory” to assess COVID jab effects. Whatever happens in Israel can reliably be expected to happen everywhere else as well, some months later.

The Significance of the Resignations of FDA Officials Responsible for Vaccine Safety

By Jeffrey A. Tucker, September 21, 2021

How significant is it that the two top FDA officials responsible for vaccine research resigned last week and this week signed a letter in The Lancet that strongly warns against vaccine boosters?

The Great Reset: Population Control and the Plotting of a “Managerial Revolution”

By Cynthia Chung, September 21, 2021

Klaus Schwab, the architect of the World Economic Forum (f. 1971), a leading, if not the leading, influencer and funder for what will set the course for world economic policy outside of government, has been the cause of much concern and suspicion since his announcement of “The Great Reset” agenda at the 50th annual meeting of the WEF in June 2020.

How Did the Perpetrators Do 9/11?

By Philip Giraldi, September 21, 2021

In support of the alternative theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition type explosions is the lack of any serious forensic analysis of the fragments of masonry and steel.

Children, COVID Vaccines and “Informed Parental Consent”: An Open Letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford

By Dr. John Cunnington, September 21, 2021

As a retired doctor, parent and grandparent, I have grave concerns over the mandating of vaccinations, isolation strategies and unnecessary masking currently being imposed and authorized by the Ontario government on children.

Capitalism “Has Not Served the American Economy Well” says “Champagne Socialist” Nancy Pelosi

By Adeyinka Makinde, September 21, 2021

Where was she when the out-of-control investment banks were bailed out after bringing the US economy to the brink of ruin in the late 2000s? Pelosi voted to bail them out because they were “too big to fail”.

Video: Vaccine Injuries and Deaths: Whistleblower Exposes VAERS Corruption

By Deborah Conrad, September 21, 2021

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.

Freedom from Fear: Stop Playing the Government’s Mind Games

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, September 22, 2021

America is in the midst of an epidemic of historic proportions. The contagion being spread like wildfire is turning communities into battlegrounds and setting Americans one against the other.

Joe Biden: Nuclear Sorcerer’s Apprentice

By Manlio Dinucci, September 21, 2021

President Biden announced the birth of AUKUS, a strategic-military partnership between the United States, Great Britain and Australia, with “the imperative of ensuring long-term peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific”, the region that in Washington’s geopolitics extends from the West coast of the United States to the coast of India.

Worldwide Blood Trail of “Good Business”: The Trillion Dollar COVID-19 “Vaccine” Market

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, September 21, 2021

Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor and founder of the “Alliance for Human Research Protection”, said in an interview that the whole attraction of the COVID 19 vaccine empire is the expected trillion-dollar market.

Diagnostic Lab Certified Pathologist Reports 20 Times Increase of Cancer in Vaccinated Patients

By Great Game India, September 21, 2021

A doctor, who is also the owner of a diagnostic lab has found a 20 times increase in cancers since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Explaining his findings he said that the vaccines seem to be causing serious autoimmune issues, in a way he described as a “reverse HIV” response.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Claim that COVID Jabs Are Safe and Effective Has Fallen Apart

Sergio Ramirez on Nicaragua: Treason All Over Again…

September 22nd, 2021 by Stephen Sefton

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.



As Nicaragua’s presidential and legislative  elections next November 7th draw nearer, so the attacks demonizing the country’s Sandinista FSLN government led by President Daniel Ortega become progressively more intense. Lately, Western propaganda outlets have focused on the recent arrests  of various figures from Nicaragua’s political opposition, claiming that they are abitrary detentions aimed at preventing any challenge to Daniel Ortega’s presidential candidacy. A recent Guardian interview with highly regarded novelist, Sergio Ramirez, a long standing, fierce critic of President Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, his former comrades, offers a litany of the falsehoods and distortions currently being deployed to discredit their government.

Ramirez was Daniel Ortega’s Vice-President from 1985 to 1990. In 1994, after failing to oust Daniel Ortega from the FSLN leadership he and other ex-Sandinistas formed a social democrat party called the Sandinista Renewal Movement (MRS). After a desperately poor electoral showing in 1996, Ramirez ostensibly retired from politics. But he remained a very high profile, virulent political critic of President Ortega and has been extremely active and influential mobilizing international opinion in Latin America, North America and Europe against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. In effect, Ramirez leverages his international influence to compensate for the comprehensive lack of support inside Nicaragua for the political opposition he represents.

Inside Nicaragua, recent well respected opinion polls have consistently indicated well over 60% electoral support for President Ortega and a little over 20% support for Nicaragua’s opposition parties. Like so much else contradicting the continuing attacks on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, that fact is systematically omitted from practically all current reporting on the country. In fact, the positive revolutionary changes President Ortega’s administration has brought about in Nicaragua completely contradict the image of the country depicted by Sergio Ramirez and the rest of Nicaragua’s political opposition.

Their attacks all start from the standard propaganda premise that President Ortega is a corrupt, brutal dictator. However, his administration’s wide ranging achievements on behalf of Nicaragua’s people are recognized by numerous relevant international bodies from institutions like the World Bank and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Under President Ortega, Nicaragua has implemented the most advanced devolved government for indigenous and afrodescendant peoples in the hemisphere and is the leading country in the Americas in terms of women’s representation in public life. Nicaragua has the most extensive and best equipped public health system in Central America.

The country is practically self sufficient in food production thanks to a radical democratization of its agricultural, livestock and fisheries production. It has the best highway system in Central America. Nicaragua’s innovative education system, especially its outreach programs to rural areas and its use of audio-visual media is very highly regarded in Latin America. International financial institutions regard the country as among the most efficient users of their loans for development  programs. Nicaragua’s diversification towards renewable energy is among the most advanced in the region. Likewise, the country is the safest, most secure in Central America.

Even so, these tremendous achievements rarely if ever figure in the narrative deployed by Western corporate and alternative media because they contradict the big lie that Daniel Ortega is a corrupt brutal dictator. The Guardian interview with Sergio Ramirez promotes that big lie shamelessly with complete disregard for the truth. Omitting the Sandinista government’s unquestionable achievements, the interview frames the country’s reality within a distorted misrepresentation of the crisis in 2018 during which Sergio Ramirez’s political allies combined with big business and the Catholic Church to attempt a violent overthrow of Nicaragua’s government.

They failed, but thanks to the systematic false witness of the Western human rights industry, the extreme violence of Nicaragua’s political opposition in that regime change crisis has been buried. Honest reporting challenging that false witness is available here and here and here, among many other sources never cited by propaganda outlets like the Guardian. As for the interview with Ramirez, among the bland puffery for his latest novel, he and his interviewer also purvey the current set of opposition falsehoods namely:

  • President Ortega is a despot arbitrarily persecuting  the political opposition to exclude their participation in November’s elections
  • the 2018 regime change crisis consisted of peaceful protests brutally repressed by the authorities who killed more than 400 young people
  • Vice President Murillo is a deranged religious maniac
  • Nicaragua has over 140 political prisoners
  • the electoral process is a farce and eight presidential candidates are imprisoned

The fundamental background explaining this set of propaganda falsehoods is that the US government has declared Nicaragua to be a serious threat to the national security of the United States. The US authorities have implemented a series of measures attacking Nicaragua’s economy. Last year, USAID produced a document called Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua which explicitly discusses ways of bringing about regime change in Nicaragua using local non profits. In response the Nicaraguan authorities have acted based on the country’s criminal code along with other national legislation, as well as its obligations under international treaties, to investigate the opposition’s criminal collusion in US aggression against the country’s people and government. Opposition propaganda to the contrary, all the people arrested are being held for offenses detailed in the country ‘s criminal code. No one in Nicaragua is imprisoned merely for their political beliefs.

The office of the Public Prosecutor in Nicaragua is an institution independent of the government which in this case has found that many figures among the country’s extra-parliamentary political opposition have not only colluded with, invited and encouraged US and European Union aggression against Nicaragua and its citizens but also accepted tens of millions of dollars from the US government. Over many years, they received that money formally via their non profit organizations but abused their non profit status, using the money corruptly so as to fund activities of the country’s political opposition aimed at facilitating US government instigated destabilization. The Public Prosecutor found that Sergio Ramirez’s non profit foundation was among the recipients of that money, so a court order was sought and obtained for his arrest.

No presidential candidates figure among the people under arrest. None of the people alluded to, for example Cristiana Chamorro, Felix Maradiaga, Medardo Mairena, Arturo Cruz, Juan Sebastian Chamorro, are even members of a political party in Nicaragua. Only Sergio Ramirez can explain why he describes people who are not even members of a political party as bona fide presidential candidates. As things stand, six opposition political parties (PLC, PLI, APRE, Camino Cristiano, ALN and Yatama) will participate in November’s elections along with the ruling FSLN party. So it is equally absurd to suggest that the electorate has no choice for whom to vote. On July 24th and 25th last, over 60% of Nicaragua’s electorate turned out to verify their voter details in their respective voting centers prior to the actual vote in November. Clearly Nicaragua’s voters disagree with Sergio Ramirez that the elections are a farce.

Ramirez and his Guardian editors continue to retail the lie that the 2018 protests were peaceful. In fact, 400 police officers suffered gunshot wounds and 22 were killed by the opposition peaceful protestors who also burnt down schools, attacked health centers and radio stations and took numerous hostages at the roadblocks they set up under the control of armed thugs. Some of that violence is documented here and here. The Guardian reports “400 young people” being killed when in fact just 10 or 12 students died, half of them Sandinista supporters killed by opposition activists. The true overall figure of people who died during the crisis is around 260, with over 60 being Sandinista supporters and the great majority passers by caught up in the opposition-provoked violence.

Among the most odious of the false claims made by Ramirez and the Guardian is the smearing of Vice President Rosario Murillo, which points to the deep rooted misogyny of both Ramirez and the Guardian’s editors. Ramirez cannot accept that a supremely talented woman wiped the floor with him and his opposition accomplices politically, consigning him and his MRS movement to electoral irrelevance. Neither he nor his colleagues of the now defunct MRS  will ever forgive Rosario Murillo for that. Murillo was a key strategist in rebuilding the FSLN as a political party through the 1990s and up until the party’s successful 2006 election campaign.

From 2007 to date, Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo have put together and managed the ministerial and legislative team that designed and carried out policies which, up until the US instigated crisis of 2018, gave Nicaragua the most successful development policies in Central America and among the most successful in all of Latin America and the Caribbean. Rosario Murillo is a revolutionary anti-imperialist readily comparable in the regional context to other outstanding women political figures in the region, from Delcy Rodriguez to Cristina Fernandez or Dilma Roussef. Ramirez and the Guardian cannot deny Murillo’s tremendous achievements and talent, so they rubbish her and smear her as a deranged kind of “mad woman in the attic”, revealing their own patriarchal instincts.

The interview with Ramirez has the headline “”A feeling of dejá vu” which could hardly be more appropriate. Yet again, a member of Nicaragua’s right wing elite has allied with the country’s historcial aggressor, the United States, colluding in US aggression to attack not just his own country’s legitimate government but also ordinary Nicaraguan citizens. In this case, the treason of Sergio Ramirez comes dressed up as brave and principled defiance by a minor high culture icon. However people in the US might well compare such treason with that of Ezra Pound, a much more influential cultural figure than Ramirez, who broadcast from Italy against the Allies during World War Two. The US authorities threw him in a cage and he only escaped a death sentence by pleading insanity.

Despite effectively collaborating with US government aggression against his country, Ramirez attracts sympathy among susceptible US liberals and European social democrats by feigning to be progressive while in practice supporting Nicaragua’s traditional oligarchy, big business and the local Catholic Church hierarchy. In Nicaragua, people draw the contrast between Ramirez’s base treachery and the illustrious example of Rubén Darío, also an incomparably more influential figure culturally than Ramirez. Darío served his country faithfully as a diplomat and was resolutely clear eyed about the menace of US imperialism in his day. As well as betraying his country, Ramirez has betrayed the cultural, spiritual and political legacy of Nicaragua’s national heroes Rubén Darío and Augusto C. Sandino. In any case, for most people in Nicaragua, the opinion of politically marginal figures like Ramirez is a matter of complete indifference.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Spanish on Tortilla con Sal.

Stephen Sefton is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Cuaderno Sandinista

Sudan Interim Regime Says It Has Thwarted a Military Coup

September 22nd, 2021 by Abayomi Azikiwe

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.



People in the Republic of Sudan and across the world awoke on September 21 to an announcement by Interim Prime Minister Abdulla Hamdok that the security forces had prevented a coup by elements within and outside the military.

Hamdok claims that those involved in the purported putsch were loyalists of the former President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who was ousted in a military seizure of power in April of 2019.

Further details on the incident allege that the center of the attempted coup was in the twin city of the capital of Khartoum, which is Omdurman, located in the area where the Blue and White Nile Rivers converge. The interim administration says that 21 people have been arrested in connection with the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Although Hamdok proclaimed that the oil-rich African state would move forward and not backwards in regard to the policies of the ousted al-Bashir administration, there is much discontent within the country as the overall social conditions have not improved since the Transitional Military Council (TMC) took power two-and-a-half years ago. The Transitional Sovereign Council (TSC) represents a coalition governance structure encompassing military officers, political parties, professional groupings, civil society organizations and technocrats, such as Hamdok, an economist with close ties to international finance capital.

The statement by the Sovereign Council administration also cited the recent unrest in the Eastern Sudan region where demonstrations had occurred for several days in September demanding reforms. Opposition groups say they want a future government which is inclusive and committed to transforming the unequal development impacting the people of the provincial states in the East.

Port Sudan located in the eastern region on the Red Sea is an important asset for the country in regard to international trade. Sudan since the partition of the country in 2011, has been weakened by the advent of the breakaway Republic of South Sudan where oil resources formerly controlled by Khartoum are now under the authority of the government in Juba.

Image on the right: Sudan woman demonstrator protests against lack of democracy (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Protesters in Eastern Sudan blocked highways, streets and the port preventing normal activities in several major cities. The Hamdok interim administration under the chairmanship of General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan had traveled to the region during 2020 to sign an agreement with opposition groups aimed at settling long standing political and economic grievances. Nonetheless, some opposition political leaders say that the agreements have not been implemented by the TSC.

Soon after the reports that the military coup had been subverted, Minister of Information, Culture and Tourism, Hamza Baloul, said on Sudan Television that:

“Today, Tuesday, September 21, 2021, a failed coup attempt was brought under control by a group of armed forces officers from the remnants of the former regime. We assure the Sudanese people that the situation is under complete control as the leaders of the military and civilian coup attempt were arrested and are being investigated now, after the last pockets of the coup were liquidated in the Shagara camp, and as the competent authorities continue to pursue the remnants of the defunct regime involved in the failed attempt. We call on all the forces of the revolution, including resistance committees, political and civil forces, peace parties, professional and trade union bodies, and all sectors of the Sudanese people to be vigilant and pay attention to the repeated attempts that seek to abort the glorious December revolution.” See this.

Nonetheless, the “Glorious December Revolution” referred to by Minister Baloul has been undermined by the dominance of the military and technocrats within the TSC. A popular uprising which began in December of 2018 in Sudan sprang up from the deteriorating economic conditions impacting the working people, farmers and youth.

Transformation Process Stalled by the TSC

The takeover by the military in Sudan was prompted by the mass demonstrations which grew during the period between December 2018 and April 2019. Thousands of people representing various opposition groupings staged a sit-in outside the defense ministry in Khartoum demanding the resignation of al-Bashir and the installation of a new civilian government.

In order to avert a popular movement from taking power in April 2019, several high-ranking military officers took control of the state claiming they were in support of the people. However, the mass demonstrations did not subside with the occupation of the capital continuing until the first week of June.

On June 3, 2019, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), opened fire on thousands of demonstrators in Khartoum. The massacre of civilians resulted in the 128 officially reported deaths with many more seriously injured. Consequently, the country was facing a profound crisis which threatened all sectors of the society.

With the intervention of the African Union (AU) and other regional structures, a negotiated settlement mandated the formation of the TSC. Although it may have appeared to be an advancement and even a breakthrough politically, in actuality the transitional council was established as an interim structure dominated by the military leadership.

The chair and vice chair of the TSC are Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemetti) respectively. These military officials were slated to remain in their positions for 21 months, which has already passed since August 2019. The tenure of the TSC is 39 months which will expire at the end of 2022. Members of the TSC, both civilian and military, are ostensibly forbidden from running for political office after the expiration of the interim administration.

Yet one of the main concerns of the political forces in Sudan is the absence of any legislative authority within the TSC. The failure to ensure multi-party elections and the establishment of a civilian government has caused divisions within the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), the coalition which brought together the various professional associations, trade unions, opposition political parties and civil society organizations during the mass demonstrations of 2019. Some FFC members are condemning other elements for their close cooperation with the military.

The TSC has undertaken negotiations with the armed opposition groups with mixed results. The Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), which includes various political and armed organizations from the restive Darfur region along with the border areas with the Republic of South Sudan, has largely adopted in principle the need to enter the proposed political process.

A Juba Peace Agreement was signed in January with the SRF and many of its affiliates. There are plans to integrate the 12,000 rebel troops with the SAF in order to fill the security vacuum left by the departure of the AU and United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Darfur region of the country in December 2020. Minni Minawi, the leader of the breakaway Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM-MM), emphasized his desire to place the rebels on an equal level with the conventional military forces. (See this)

Democratic Transition and Sudanese Foreign Policy

Sudan had been the largest geographic nation-state on the African continent prior to the partition of 2011 and the independence of the Republic of South Sudan. The vast petroleum resources and other natural resources were propelling rapid economic growth since the early 2000s.

With the division of the country into two separate states, many issues related to the drilling and transport of oil became a major impediment to the development of both Khartoum and Juba. Border disputes in the Kordofan regions and the Blue Nile between the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan still remain unresolved. Therefore, considering the border issues and internal problems within Sudan and South Sudan, neither government has benefited from the partition.

The U.S. and the State of Israel were main proponents for the division of the Republic of Sudan during the period of the armed conflict between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the SAF. Political and economic pressures from Washington during the administration of former President Donald Trump resulted in a commitment by the Interim Prime Minister Hamdok to “normalize” relations with Israel. The unilateral declaration of “normalization” represented a violation of the Israel Boycott Act of 1958 passed into law by the then parliament of the Republic of Sudan.

This shift in foreign policy has drawn opposition inside the country. Many organizations have objected to the maneuvers including the Sudanese Communist Party, National Umma Party, Sudanese Baath Party, the Popular Congress Party, among others. (See this)

After the decision to establish relations with Israel, other measures were required by Washington to have Sudan delisted as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The interim government was forced to pay restitution to U.S. citizens killed in various attacks attributed to groups such as al-Qaeda. With the interim regime’s acquiescence to Washington and Tel Aviv, Sudan would then be eligible for loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other western based financial institutions. These loans, which have been given to many African states since the 1960s, have done more to maintain the economic and consequent political dependency of the continent on the imperialist center of power.

A movement for a complete revolutionary transformation of the Republic of Sudan will have to be based upon the political and organizational capacity of the majority of people within the society. Genuine independence and national development cannot be directed from the western states, it must emerge from the efforts of the people in alliance with anti-imperialist forces on an international scale.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Sudan General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan is chair of the Transitional Sovereign Council (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.



Here is a doctor and chief RN in a US Department of Health & Human Services Hospital reporting that the official protocol is NOT to report adverse reactions to the vaccine, NOT to treat Covid patients with safe and effective Ivermectin, indeed, it is impermissible to do so and you are fired if you save lives with Ivermectin, and NOT to permit staff to refuse inoculation based on informed consent from seeing the deadly effects of the vaccine on patients.

In this video you can witness the doctor and nurses speaking about the evil of the Health & Human Services federal hospital intentionally killing people and preventing doctors and nurses from saving the lives of patients.  This is not happening from incompetence and lack of knowledge.  People are being systematically murdered, and Covid is being blamed.  All adverse vaccine reactions are blamed on Covid, not on the vaccine, and this lie is used to justify not reporting the adverse event.  You had better watch the brief video before it is taken down as “Covid disinformation.” It is a video of doctors and nurses on the front line discussing what they see and experience.

It has also emerged that the medical establishment arranged a “test” of HCQ’s effectiveness  by waiting until patients were in the last stage of the disease before administering HCQ.  They did this despite knowing that HCQ is effective in the early stages of Covid infection and arrests the progress of the infection.  In the later stages of the disease, HCQ is not effective, or not nearly as effective.  

Having rigged the test in this way over the dead bodies of betrayed patients, the medical establishment used the arranged failure of HCQ to prevent the use of Ivermectin, which is effective at all stages of the disease.

This is still the medical protocol in American hospitals despite the fact (1) that Ivermectin has cleared Covid from entire areas of India where it is used as a Covid preventative, (2) that the Tokyo Medical Association has recommended that Japanese doctors use Ivermection for the prevention and cure of Covid, (3) that large areas of Africa where Ivermectin is regularly used as a preventative and treatment for River Blindness have few Covid cases, (4) and that the vast majority of Americans  who are cured of Covid by treatment are not cured in hospitals but by doctors in private practice administering HCQ and Ivermectin.

The evidence is overwhelming that the US medical, political, and media establishments are perfectly comfortable knowingly enforcing unscientific and counterfactual death policies on the American people.  


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

Freedom from Fear: Stop Playing the Government’s Mind Games

September 22nd, 2021 by John W. Whitehead

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.



No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.”—Edward R. Murrow, broadcast journalist

America is in the midst of an epidemic of historic proportions.

The contagion being spread like wildfire is turning communities into battlegrounds and setting Americans one against the other.

Normally mild-mannered individuals caught up in the throes of this disease have been transformed into belligerent zealots, while others inclined to pacifism have taken to stockpiling weapons and practicing defensive drills.

This plague on our nation—one that has been spreading like wildfire—is a potent mix of fear coupled with unhealthy doses of paranoia and intolerance, tragic hallmarks of the post-9/11 America in which we live and the constantly shifting crises that keep the populace in a state of high alert.

Everywhere you turn, those on both the left- and right-wing are fomenting distrust and division. You can’t escape it.

We’re being fed a constant diet of fear: fear of a virus, fear of the unmasked, fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of people who are too religious, fear of people who are not religious enough, fear of extremists, fear of the government, fear of those who fear the government. The list goes on and on.

The strategy is simple yet effective: the best way to control a populace is through fear and discord.

Fear makes people stupid.

Confound them, distract them with mindless news chatter and entertainment, pit them against one another by turning minor disagreements into major skirmishes, and tie them up in knots over matters lacking in national significance.

Most importantly, divide the people into factions, persuade them to see each other as the enemy and keep them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.

This is how free people enslave themselves and allow tyrants to prevail.

This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology, endless wars, COVID-19 mandates, etc., hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes.

All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.

Turn on the TV or flip open the newspaper on any given day, and you will find yourself accosted by reports of government corruption, corporate malfeasance, militarized police, marauding SWAT teams, and egregious assaults on the rights of the citizenry.

America has already entered a new phase, one in which communities are locked down, employees are forced to choose between keeping their jobs or exercising their freedoms, children are arrested in schools, military veterans are forcibly detained by government agents, and law-abiding Americans are finding their movements tracked, their financial transactions documented and their communications monitored.

These threats are not to be underestimated.

Yet even more dangerous than these violations of our basic rights is the language in which they are couched: the language of fear. It is a language spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure.

Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government.

So far, these tactics are working.

An atmosphere of fear permeates modern America.

Each successive crisis in recent years (a COVID-19 pandemic, terrorism, etc.)—manufactured or legitimate—has succeeded in reducing the American people to what commentator Dan Sanchez refers to as “herd-minded hundreds of millions [who] will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.”

Sanchez continues:

“I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war…

“I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges. But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves…

“Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all.”

As history makes clear, fear leads to fascistic, totalitarian regimes.

It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. Fear prevents us from thinking. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.

A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled.

The following are a few of the necessary ingredients for a fascist state:

  • The government is managed by a powerful leader (even if he or she assumes office by way of the electoral process). This is the fascistic leadership principle (or father figure).
  • The government assumes it is not restrained in its power. This is authoritarianism, which eventually evolves into totalitarianism.
  • The government ostensibly operates under a capitalist system while being undergirded by an immense bureaucracy.
  • The government through its politicians emits powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
  • The government has an obsession with national security while constantly invoking terrifying internal and external enemies.
  • The government establishes a domestic and invasive surveillance system and develops a paramilitary force that is not answerable to the citizenry.
  • The government and its various agencies (federal, state, and local) develop an obsession with crime and punishment. This is overcriminalization.
  • The government becomes increasingly centralized while aligning closely with corporate powers to control all aspects of the country’s social, economic, military, and governmental structures.
  • The government uses militarism as a center point of its economic and taxing structure.
  • The government is increasingly imperialistic in order to maintain the military-industrial corporate forces.

The parallels to modern America are impossible to ignore.

“Every industry is regulated. Every profession is classified and organized,” writes Jeffrey Tucker. “Every good or service is taxed. Endless debt accumulation is preserved. Immense doesn’t begin to describe the bureaucracy. Military preparedness never stops, and war with some evil foreign foe, remains a daily prospect.”

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary. In times of “crisis,” expediency is upheld as the central principle—that is, in order to keep us safe and secure, the government must militarize the police, strip us of basic constitutional rights and criminalize virtually every form of behavior.

Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring.

It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences.

For example, neuroscientists have observed how quickly fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports:

In the experiment, researchers taught male mice to fear the smell of cherry blossoms by associating the scent with mild foot shocks. Two weeks later, they bred with females. The resulting pups were raised to adulthood having never been exposed to the smell. Yet when the critters caught a whiff of it for the first time, they suddenly became anxious and fearful. They were even born with more cherry-blossom-detecting neurons in their noses and more brain space devoted to cherry-blossom-smelling.

The conclusion? “A newborn mouse pup, seemingly innocent to the workings of the world, may actually harbor generations’ worth of information passed down by its ancestors.”

Now consider the ramifications of inherited generations of fears and experiences on human beings. As the Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, fear, trauma and compliance can be passed down through the generations.

Fear has been a critical tool in past fascistic regimes, and it now operates in our contemporary world—all of which raises fundamental questions about us as human beings and what we will give up in order to perpetuate the illusions of safety and security.

In the words of psychologist Erich Fromm:

[C]an human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love—that is to say, can man forget he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society into a human one?


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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Freedom from Fear: Stop Playing the Government’s Mind Games
  • Tags:

The Evils of Big Pharma Exposed

September 22nd, 2021 by Joachim Hagopian

Originally published on Global Research in January 2015

This article published six years ago, is of utmost relevance to the ongoing covid-19 crisis.


What’s wrong with America is what’s wrong with Big Pharma. And what’s wrong with Big Pharma is what’s wrong with America. This circular reality is aimed to be thoroughly covered in this presentation.

This is the story of how Big Pharma seeks enormous profits over the health and well-being of the humans it serves, and how drug companies invasively corrupted the way that the healthcare industry delivers its vital services. This is neither a new nor unique story. In fact, the story of Big Pharma is the exact same story of how Big Government, Big Oil, Big Agri-Chem Giants like Monsanto have come to power. The controlling shareholders of all these major industries are one and the same. Big Money belonging to the global central banking cabal own and operate all the Fortune 500 companies in addition to virtually all national governments on this earth. The Rockefellers privatized healthcare in the United States back in the 1930’s and has financed and largely influenced both healthcare and Big Pharma ever since.

The history of the last several centuries is one in which a handful of these oligarch families, primarily from Europe and the United States, have been controlling governments and wars to ruthlessly consolidate and maximize both power and control over the earth’s most precious resources to promote a New World Order of one totalitarian fascist government exercising absolute power and control over the entire global population. This group of oligarch families have systematically and effectively eliminated competition under the deceptive misnomer of a free enterprise system. Modernization is synonymous with globalization, privatization and militarization. Subsequently, an extremely small number of humans representing a privileged ruling elite has imposed a global caste system that’s hatched its long term diabolical plan to actualize its one world government. Sadly at this tumultuous moment in our human history, it’s never been closer to materialization.

Here in the early stages of the twenty-first century, a ruling elite has manipulated our planet of seven billion people into a global economic system of feudalism. Through pillaging and plundering the earth, setting up a cleverly deceptive financial system that controls the production and flow of fiat paper money using the US dollar as the standard international currency, they have turned the world’s citizens and nations into indentured servants, hopelessly in debt due to their grand theft planet. With Russia and China spearheading a shift away from the US dollar and petrodollar, and many smaller nations following their lead, a major shift in the balance of power is underway between Western and Eastern oligarchs. Thus, by design escalating calamity and crises are in overdrive at the start of 2015.

By examining one aspect of this grand theft planet through the story of Big Pharma, one can accurately recognize and assess Big Pharma’s success in its momentum-gathering power grab. Its story serves as a microcosm perfectly illustrating and paralleling the macrocosm that is today’s oligarch engineered, highly successful New World Order nightmare coming true right before our eyes that we’re all now up against. By understanding how this came to manifest, we will be better able to confront, challenge and oppose it.

Every year a handful of the biggest pharmaceutical corporations are a well-represented fixture amongst the most powerful Fortune 500 companies of the world. The twelve largest drug manufacturers and the eight largest drug delivery companies (or otherwise known as the drug channels companies) that include drug wholesalers, chain pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers (so called PBM’s) consist in total only 20 of the top 500 global corporations in the world. Thus, despite making up only 4% of the total Fortune 500 companies in 2014, both Big Pharma’s highly profitable revenues and absolute economic and political power in the United States and world are unprecedented.

The median revenue of the drug channels companies that made 2014’s Fortune 500 from the most recent available 2013 figures was $95.1 billion with a median profit as percentage of assets of 2.9% over the year before. The top 12 drug manufacturing companies held a median revenue of only $17.5 billion but a median profit of assets level of 10.6% over 2012. Though the channels companies like CVS (the top channels company and #12 on Fortune 500), Walgreen (#37) and Rite-Aid (#118) overall maintain higher revenues and positions in the Fortune 500 list, their profit margins are not nearly as immense as the pharmaceutical manufacturers that are almost four times more profitable.

Big Pharma’s top eleven corporations generated net profits in just one decade from 2003 to 2012 of nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars – that’s just net profit alone. The net profit for 2012 amongst those top eleven amounted to $85 billion in just that one year. The majority of these largest pharmaceuticals are headquartered in the US – including the top four, Johnson & Johnson (#39 on Fortune 500 list), Pfizer (#51), Merck (#65) and Eli Lilly (#129) along with Abbott (#152) and Bristol Myers Squibb (#176). The healthcare research company IMS Health projects worldwide sales of Pharma drugs to exceed one trillion dollars by 2014. With that kind of obscenely powerful money to throw around, what Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma nearly always gets.

Just as the oligarchs buy, own and control national governments to do their sleazy bidding, Big Pharma as an extension of those same oligarchs does too. Perhaps what makes Big Pharma unique in the US is that the industry outspends all others in laying down cold hard cash into its lobbying efforts – another word for bribing governments that includes not only US Congress (and parliaments) but its US federal regulator, the bought and sold Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It poured $2.7 billion into its lobbying interests from 1998 to 2013, 42% more than the second most “Gov. Corp.” bribe which happens to be its sister industry insurance.

And it’s this unholy trinity of the medical establishment (personified by the American Medical Association), embedded insurance industry that wrote Obamacare into law and Big Pharma that makes the United States the most costly, broken, corrupt, destructive healthcare system in the entire world. The structured system is designed and layered with built in incentives at every tier to make and keep people sick, chronically dependent on their drugs for survival that merely mask and smother symptoms rather than cure or eradicate the root cause of disease.

Plenty of empirical evidence exists that confirm concerted diabolical efforts have been made to ruin the lives ofpioneering heroes who have come up with possible cures for cancer, AIDS and other terminal illnesses. Obviously their work poses a serious threat to medical status quo. Hence, their treatments have all been effectively suppressed by conventional medicine. Bottom line, if humans are healthy, the healthcare industry does not survive. Thus, it’s in its own inherently self-serving interest to promote illness in the name of wellness.

Also because natural healing substances cannot be patented, Big Pharma has done its sinister best to squelch any and all knowledge and information that come from the far more affordable means of alternative health sources that explore ancient traditional cultures’ medicinal use of hemp along with thousands of other plants and roots that could threaten drug profits and power of Big Pharma and modern medicine as they’re currently practiced and monopolized.

Another cold hard reality is pharmaceutical drugs especially when consumed to manage chronic disease and symptoms cause severe side effects that also damage, harm and kill. The most prescribed drugs of all are painkillers that typically are highly addictive. Big Pharma with the help of their global army of doctors have purposely and calculatingly turned a large percentage of us especially in the United States into hardcore drug addicts, both physically and psychologically addicted to artificial synthetic substances that are detrimental to our health and well-being. More than three quarters of US citizens over 50 are currently taking prescribed medication. One in four women in their 40’s and 50’s is taking antidepressants. Though the US contains just 5% of the world population, it consumes over half of all prescribed medication and a phenomenal 80% of the world’s supply of painkillers. Those who admit to taking prescription drugs on average take four different prescription drugs daily. Taking massive amounts of prescription drugs has caused an epidemic that’s part of a sinister plan to squeeze yet more profit out of a system designed to keep humans chronically unhealthy.

Even more alarming is the fact that death by medical error at near a quarter million people annually has become thethird largest killer of US citizens behind heart disease and cancer. Other more recent studies have estimated upwards of up to 440,000 have died yearly from preventable mistakes at hospitals. Blind obedience to Big Pharma and a conventional medical system too dependent on surgery and technology has inflicted more harm than good on the U.S. population.

Because doctors now are forced to rely so heavily on drug companies for information about what they prescribe, they’re ill equipped and ill-informed in their lack of adequate knowledge and training to understand what all the interactive drugs are doing to toxically harm their human guinea pigs they call patients. We are finding out that thecumulative and synergistic effects of poly-prescription drug use is frequently a lethal cocktail to millions of human beings on this planet. Combine that with the negative effects of our air, water, food and alcohol/illicit drugs, and the health dangers increase dramatically.

Look at the current damage done by over-prescribing antibiotics. Studies have learned that too much antibiotics cause trans-generational permanent DNA damage. The 20,000 times a year in the US alone that antibiotics are prescribed are highly toxic and damaging to the nervous system. On top of that, they simply don’t work anymore. The epidemic of trans-mutated bacterial infection and parasites that invade and infest the digestive tract in particular killing good bacteria and spread to other internal organs have become highly resistive to overuse of antibiotics. Big Pharma and doctors know all this yet they are responsible for antibiotic overconsumption by uninformed Americans.

Then look at what we are now learning about Big Pharma vaccines and the wanton reckless endangerment of children and pregnant mothers with toxic levels of mercury causing increased rates of autism, brain damage and even death. The criminal cover-up by Big Gov. and Big Pharma is egregious. Flu vaccines have recently been exposed that are totally ineffective along with the horrific damage being done to humans worldwide. Instead of preventing and decreasing illness, vaccines too often have had the opposite effect, exponentially increasing illness, causing irreversible damage and even death to thousands of unsuspecting victims mostly living in Third World nations. India’s Supreme Court is currently looking into charging Bill Gates with criminal harm to many of its citizens especially children injured or killed by his global vaccine program.

A growing number of critics believe Gates’ true aim is to eugenically reduce the world population from seven billion down to a “more manageable” size of half to one billion people. With the precedent of a well-documented history of horrifying eugenics practiced on the poor and most vulnerable in the US up till the 1980’s, oligarchs have been scheming to kill most of us on the planet for a long time now. With last year’s West African outbreak of the most deadly Ebola virus ever, and it being patented as bio-warfare, and mounting evidence that it was purposely started by a joint US military-university research team in Sierra Leone causing its global spread, more people than ever have perished and a growing segment of the population suspect that it is being used as a weapon of mass destruction to effectively depopulate the earth. We can largely thank the demonic partnership between Big Pharma and US Empire for that.

To further control the global health system, Big Pharma has largely dictated what’s been taught in medical schools throughout North America, heavily subsidizing them as a means of dictating the conventional dogma that’s standard curriculum down to even the textbooks. Several years ago a revolt at Harvard amongst med students and faculty went public. For a long time now doctors have been educated primarily to treat their patients with drugs, in effect becoming drug pushing, pharmaceutical whores, mere foot soldiers in Big Pharma’s war on health. Starting in the final year of med school, Big Pharma insidiously hones in on young med students, seductively wining and dining prospective physicians, showering them with money in the form of educational handouts, gifts, trips and perks galore to recruit its legions of loyal, thoroughly indoctrinated drug peddlers around the world. Thousands of doctors in the US are on Big Pharma payrolls. Typically early on in their careers physicians are unwittingly co-opted into this corrupt malaise of an irreparable system that’s owned and operated by Big Pharma.

And here’s why the drug companies control the global healthcare empire. Since 1990 Big Pharma has been pumping at least $150 million that we know about (and no doubt lots more we don’t know about) buying off politicians who no longer represent the interests of their voting public. Thanks to Big Law via last spring’s Supreme Court decision, current campaign financing laws permit unlimited, carte blanche bribery power for America’s most wealthy and powerful to fill the pockets of corrupt politicians with absolutely no oversight. Though the corporate buyoff of other nations around the globe may not appear quite so extreme and blatantly criminal as in the United States, international drug companies make certain that every national government allows full access and flow of their prescription drugs into each nation, including rubber stamped approval by each nation’s regulatory body to ensure global maximization of record setting profit. But because far more money is spent on the healthcare industry in the US, twice as much as the next nation Canada and equal to the next ten combined, it’s no surprise that hapless Americans end up having to pay far higher exorbitant costs for their made-in-the-USA drugs than anyone else on the planet. The average US citizen spends about $1000 on pharmaceutical drugs each year, 40% higher than Canadians.

Big Pharma also invests more dollars into advertising than any other industry in America, transmitting its seductively deceptive message direct to its consumers, explicitly giving them marching orders to request specific drugs from their doctors. In 2012 alone, pharmaceutical corporations paid nearly $3.5 billion to market their drugson television, radio, internet, magazines, saturating every media outlet. Their message – pleasure, relief, peace of mind, joy, love and happiness are all just a pill away. No problem or pain in life can’t be conquered by a quick fix – compliments of Big Pharma.

Much of Big Pharma’s success over the last couple decades has been the result of specifically targeting special new populations to con and win over, resorting to creating new diseases and maladies to entice troubled, stressed out, gullible individuals into believing there’s something abnormally wrong with them, that they are among always a growing segment of our population who quietly suffer from whatever discomforting symptoms, deficits, dysfunctions, ailments, syndromes and disorders that enterprising Big Pharma connives to slyly invent, promote, package and sell. This unethical practice has been called “disease mongering.” Drug companies today operate no different from the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear. Saturating the market with their alluring, promising ads, check out any half hour of national network news on television targeting the baby boomer and geriatric crowd and you’ll notice 95% of the commercials are all brought to you by none other than Big Pharma. Of course they pay big bucks for slick ad marketing campaigns that shrewdly target the oldsters most apt to suffer health problems in addition to being virtually the only Americans left still watching the nightly network news. Three out of four people under 65 in the US today recognize that mainstream news media is nothing less than pure Gov. Corp. propaganda.

Also in recent years Big Pharma has become deceitfully masterful at repackaging and rebranding old meds at higher prices ever in search of expanded consumers. It’s a lot easier and far less money to engage in this unethical industry-wide practice of recycling an old pill than to manufacture a new one. Prozac became the biggest drug sold until it was learned that it caused so many people to kill themselves or others, especially adolescents. Then Eli Lilly deceptively repackaged and relabeled it under the less threatening name Sarafem at a much higher price tailored to target unsuspecting women seeking relief from menstrual pain. Like Prozac as another Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor antidepressant, Paxil was suddenly repackaged as the cure-all for shyness under the guise of treating social anxiety. Taking full advantage of knowing that millions of humans feel unsure of themselves dealing with strangers and groups, Big Pharma to the rescue exploiting people’s nervousness by clinically labeling it as social anxiety and reintroducing the antidepressant pink pill as their panacea to personal happiness, lifelong self-confidence and success in life. This most prevalent industry pattern of reusing the same old drugs all dressed up with new custom designed names for new purposes on new custom designed populations for yet more price gouging is nothing less than resorting to a predatory practice of criminal false advertising.

Perhaps as sinister as any aspect of the drug business is how Big Pharma has completely taken over the FDA. A recent Harvard study slammed the FDA making the accusation that it simply “cannot be trusted” because it’s owned and operated by Big Pharma. With complete autonomy and control, now pharmaceutical companies knowingly market drugs that carry high risk dangers for consumers. But because they so tightly control its supposed regulatory gatekeeper, drugs are commonly mass marketed and before the evidence of potential harm becomes overwhelming, by design when the slow bureaucratic wheels turn issuing a drug recall, billions in profit have already been unscrupulously reaped at the deadly expense of its victims. Additionally, doctors, pharmacists and patients rarely even hear about important recalls due to dangerous side effects or contamination. Yet hundreds of Big Pharma drugsare recalled every year. Many FDA approved drugs like FenPhen, Vioxx, Zohydro and Celebrex kill hundreds before they’re finally removed from the shelf. This withholding the truth from the professionals and public consumers is yet more evidence that Big Pharma protects its profits more than people.

This evil practice that keeps repeating itself is proof that Big Pharma is a criminal racket. It no longer needs outside independent research demonstrating a drug’s efficacy to be FDA approved. Currently research is conducted and compiled by the pharmaceutical industry itself to fraudulently show positive results from methodologically flawed drug trials when in reality a drug proves either ill effective at doing what it’s purported to do or downright harmful. Research outcomes only need to show that the drug outperforms a placebo, not other older drugs already available on the market that have proven to be effective at lower cost.

Similar to shady personnel moving seamlessly in and out of governmental public service to think tanks to universities to private law to corporations to lobbyists, the same applies to heads of the FDA moving to and from Big Pharma. Unfortunately this is how our government has been taken over by special interests. Yet this rampant conflict of interest goes unchecked.

Because Big Pharma sometimes outright owns and largely controls today’s most prominent medical journals, spreading false propaganda, disinformation and lies about the so called miracle effects of a given drug is yet another common practice that is malevolent to the core. 98% of the advertising revenue of medical journals is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. Shoddy and false claims based on shoddy and false research all controlled by Big Pharma often get published in so called reputable journals giving the green light to questionable drugs that are either ineffective or worse yet even harmful. Yet they regularly pass peer and FDA muster with rave reviews.

But because Big Pharma’s never held accountable for its evildoing, it continues to literally get away with murder, not unlike the militant police, the CIA, Monsanto and the US Empire that willfully and methodically commit mass murder on a global scale or through false flag terrorism having its mercenary Moslem allies kill innocent people as on 9/11 and France’s recent “9/11.” Since all serve the interests of their oligarch puppet masters toward grand theft planet and New World Order with total impunity, the world continues to suffer and be victimized.

Nearly five years ago the Justice Department filed and won a huge criminal lawsuit against Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical corporations in the world employing 116,000 employees and boasting an annual revenue of more than $50 billion ($53.8 in 2013). Fined $2.3 billion to pay off civil and criminal charges for illegally promoting the use of four of its drugs, the unprecedented settlement became the largest case of healthcare fraud in history. The crux of the case centered on Pfizer’s illegal practice of marketing drugs for purposes other than what the FDA originally approved. While the law permits a wide leeway for physicians to prescribe drugs for multiple purposes, Pharma manufacturers are restricted to selling their drugs only for the expressed purposes given them by FDA approval.

The 2003 lawsuit would never even have been filed had it not been for whistleblowing sales rep John Kopchinski who forced authorities to investigate what’s been a common Big Pharma practice, selling drugs for off-label uses. While back in 2001 the FDA had approved a 10 mg dosage of Bextra for arthritis patients and for menstrual cramps, Pfizer sent Kopchinski out with instructions to give complimentary 20 mg samples of Bextra to doctors, thus willfully and illegally endangering patient lives, particularly because in 2005 Bextra was taken off the market due toincreased risk of heart attacks and stroke. The truth is Big Pharma will do anything to boost its money making big profits, including killing innocent people.

But the story doesn’t end here. This legal case potently illustrates how the US federal government has been co-opted and conspires with Big Pharma to knowingly do harm to American citizens. When the story broke in the fall of 2009 of this record fine levied against Pfizer, assistant director Kevin Perkins of the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Division touted how the feds mean business going after lawbreakers within the pharmaceutical industry, boasting that “it sends a clear message.” But it turns out that that false bravado was an all-for-show facade.

The truth is the US government will knuckle under to Big Pharma, Wall Street and Big Banks every single time, even when it knows these “too big to fail” criminals repeatedly violate laws intended to protect the public. And constantly bailing them out at overburdened taxpayer expense only causes them to become more brazenly criminal, knowing they will always be protected by their co-conspirators the feds.

Back in November 2001 the FDA had stated that Bextra was unsafe for patients at risk of heart disease and stroke, rejecting its use especially at higher than 10mg doses on patients suffering from post-surgery pain. Yet Pfizer went ahead anyway marketing its product for any doctor who “used a scalpel for a living” as one district manager testified. It was learned that Pfizer deployed multimillions of dollars to its well-paid army of hundreds of doctors to go around “educating” other MD’s on the miracle benefits of Bextra. Again, misusing doctors as pitchmen to sell inflated false claims is employing the medical profession as Big Pharma’s industry whores.

By the time Bextra was finally taken off the market in April 2005, after killing a number of at risk patients that never should have been prescribed the painkiller, Pfizer had already made its cool $1.7 billion off the drug being illegally sold for purposes the FDA had expressly forbidden. Here’s where Big Pharma rules over Big Gov. Because by law any company that’s found guilty of fraud is prohibited from continuing as a Medicare and Medicaid contractor, which of course Pfizer is and was, the feds under the morally bankrupt excuse that Big Pharma’s also “too big to fail” made a dirty little secret deal with Pfizer in the backroom law offices of the federal government.

Just like US Empire uses the “national security” card, so do the banksters, Wall Street and Big Pharma use their “too big to fail” trump card to get away with their own crimes against humanity. It’s a rigged world where an elitist cabal of cheats and thugs mistreat fellow humans as owned commodities and indentured expendables. Money and power mean everything while human life means nothing to them. So the secret deal was cut where on paper only the fake Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia and Upjohn that never sold a single drug would be found criminally guilty so the conveniently contrived loophole would spare Big Pharma Pfizer’s from its alleged death. Records show that on the very same day in 2007 that the feds worked out this sweetheart deal with Pfizer, this hollowed out shell company as Pfizer’s backdoor nonentity was born. How convenient as Big Gov. and Big Pharma got to live happily ever after together in criminal conspiracy against their own people they’re supposed to serve and protect, kind of like the way police forces across this nation are “serving and protecting” citizens.

Then with drug profits so obscenely high, even with a slap on the hand penalty fee of $2.3 billion, Big Pharma’s net profit for just one quarter easily can pay it off. Three years later in July 2012 the Justice Department handed down yet an even bigger fine of $3 billion to UK’s global healthcare giant GlaxoSmithKline for the same exact crimes. As long as Big Pharma continues raking in such enormous profits, fines into the billions mean nothing since they’re paid off in a few months’ time. Not until CEO’s and top executives of Big Banks, Big Wall Street and Big Pharma start going to jail to serve long term sentences for their crimes, it’ll conveniently remain business as usual. And as long as Big Pharma owns Big Gov. Corp., just like the oligarchs own everything there is to earthly own, nothing will ever change for the better unless we as citizens of the world demand accountability and justice that punishment rightly fit the corporate crime.


Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on The Evils of Big Pharma Exposed

Joe Biden apprendista stregone nucleare

September 21st, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Il presidente Biden ha annunciato la nascita dell’Aukus, partenariato strategico-militare tra Stati Uniti, Gran Bretagna e Australia, con «l’imperativo di assicurare la pace e stabilità a lungo termine nell’Indo-Pacifico», la regione che nella geopolitica di Washington si estende dalla costa occidentale degli Usa a quella dell’India.

Scopo di questa «missione strategica» è «affrontare insieme le minacce del 21° secolo come abbiamo fatto nel 20° secolo». Chiaro il riferimento alla Cina e alla Russia. Per «difendersi contro le minacce in rapida evoluzione», l’Aukus vara un «progetto chiave»: Stati Uniti e Gran Bretagna aiuteranno l’Australia ad acquisire «sottomarini a propulsione nucleare, armati convenzionalmente».

La prima reazione all’annuncio del progetto dell’Aukus è stata quella della Francia: essa perde in tal modo un contratto da 90 miliardi di dollari, stipulato con l’Australia, per la fornitura di 12 sottomarini da attacco Barracuda a propulsione convenzionale. Parigi, accusando di essere stata pugnalata alle spalle, ha ritirato gli ambasciatori dagli Usa e dall’Australia. Sul contenzioso tra Parigi e Washington si è focalizzata l’attenzione politico-mediatica, lasciando in ombra le implicazioni del progetto Aukus.

Anzitutto non è credibile che Stati Uniti e Gran Bretagna forniscano all’Australia le tecnologie più avanzate per costruire almeno 8 sottomarini nucleari di ultima generazione, con un costo unitario di circa 10 miliardi di dollari, per dotarli solo di armamenti convenzionali (non-nucleari). È come se fornissero all’Australia portaerei impossibilitate a imbarcare aerei. In realtà i sottomarini avranno tubi di lancio adatti sia a missili non-nucleari che a missili nucleari. Il primo ministro Morrison ha già annunciato che l’Australia acquisirà rapidamente, tramite gli Usa, «capacità di attacco a lungo raggio» con missili Tomahawk e missili ipersonici, armabili di testate sia convenzionali che nucleari.

Sicuramente i sottomarini australiani saranno in grado di lanciare anche missili balistici Usa Trident D5, di cui sono armati i sottomarini statunitensi e britannici. Il Trident D5 ha un raggio di 12.000 km e può trasportare fino a 14 testate termonucleari indipendenti: W76 da 100 kt o W88 da 475 kt. Il sottomarino da attacco nucleare Columbia, la cui costruzione è iniziata nel 2019, ha 16 tubi di lancio per i Trident D5, per cui ha la capacità di lanciare oltre 200 testate nucleari in grado di distruggere altrettanti obiettivi (basi, porti, città e altri).

Su questo sfondo, appare chiaro che Washington ha tagliato fuori Parigi dalla fornitura dei sottomarini all’Australia non semplicemente a scopo economico (favorire le proprie industrie belliche), ma a scopo strategico: passare a una nuova fase della escalation militare contro la Cina e la Russia nell’«Indo-Pacifico», mantenendo il comando assoluto dell’operazione. Cancellata la fornitura dei sottomarini francesi a propulsione convenzionale, obsoleti per tale strategia, Washington ha avviato quella che l’Ican-Australia denuncia come «l’accresciuta nuclearizzazione della capacità militare dell’Australia». Una volta operativi, i sottomarini nucleari australiani saranno di fatto inseriti nella catena di comando Usa, che ne deciderà l’impiego. Questi sottomarini, di cui nessuno potrà controllare il reale armamento, avvicinandosi in profondità e silenziosamente alle coste della Cina, e anche a quelle della Russia, potrebbero colpire in pochi minuti i principali obiettivi in questi paesi con una capacità distruttiva pari a oltre 20 mila bombe di Hiroshima.

È facilmente prevedibile quale sarà la prima conseguenza. La Cina, che secondo il Sipri possiede 350 testate nucleari in confronto alle 5.550 degli Usa, accelererà lo sviluppo quantitativo e qualitativo delle proprie forze nucleari. Il potenziale economico e tecnologico che possiede le permette di dotarsi di forze nucleari equiparabili a quelle di Usa e Russia. Merito dell’apprendista stregone Biden che, mentre avvia il «progetto chiave» dei sottomarini nucleari all’Australia, esalta «la leadership di lunga data degli Stati Uniti nella non proliferazione globale».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Joe Biden apprendista stregone nucleare

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.



Of relevance to unfolding events, this article was originally published on February 19, 2021.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin on Thursday said the United States would not undertake a hasty or disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Addressing the second and final day of the NATO Defense Ministerial, Austin thanked Allies for their continued commitment to the Resolute Support Mission and reiterated that the US remains committed to a diplomatic effort to end the war.

He told the Allies that the US is conducting a thorough review of the conditions of the US-Taliban Agreement to determine whether all parties have adhered to those conditions.

Austin made clear that he is committed to consulting with Allies and partners throughout this process.

He reassured Allies that the US would not undertake a hasty or disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.

On Iraq, the Secretary reaffirmed the US commitment to the enduring defeat of ISIS, respecting Iraq’s sovereignty, and ensuring long-term regional stability. He noted that the recent rocket attack in Erbil underscores the importance of our continued work in the region.

Addressing the same event, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the Afghan peace process and said the UK Government remains resolute in its support to the government of Afghanistan in the face of unacceptable Taliban violence.

“We are determined to ensure that conditions are met for achieving a lasting political settlement, which is the only means of ensuring security from terrorism for the people of Afghanistan, the United Kingdom and its Allies,” he said.

He affirmed to allies that the UK remains committed to the operation and supporting the Afghan peace process.

No Decision on Future Posture

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday at end of the two NATO Defense Ministers meetings in Brussels that the military alliance will only leave Afghanistan when security conditions on the ground allow it.

Stoltenberg said that at this stage, the alliance has not made a final decision about a troop presence in Afghanistan.

“At this stage, we have made no final decision on the future of our presence, but, as the May 1 deadline is approaching, NATO Allies will continue to closely consult and coordinate in the coming weeks,” said Stoltenberg at a press conference in Brussels.

“We remain committed to our Resolute Support mission, with training and funding for the brave Afghan security forces,” he said.

“Defense Ministers had a thorough discussion on the situation in Afghanistan. We are faced with many dilemmas and there are no easy options,” he said.

On the importance of peace in Afghanistan, he said:

“NATO strongly supports the peace process, and as part of it, we have significantly reduced the number of our troops. The peace process is the best chance to end years of suffering and violence. And bring lasting peace. It is important for the Afghan people, for the security of the region and for our own security.”

He said the talks are fragile, and progress is slow.

“The Taliban must negotiate in good faith, reduce the high level of violence and live up to their commitment to stop cooperating with international terrorist groups,” he said.

 The NATO chief said that the presence of alliance troops in Afghanistan was conditions-based, stating that the Taliban needs to abide by their commitments within the framework of the Doha agreement from last February.

Stoltenberg said that US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin assured allies that the US will work together with NATO on Afghanistan.

The US-Taliban Peace Agreement

On February 29 last year, former US President Donald Trump struck a peace agreement with the Taliban under which Washington agreed foreign troops would leave Afghanistan by May 2021 in return for conditions including cutting ties with Al-Qaeda and opening peace talks with Afghan sides.

But President Joe Biden’s administration has said it would review the deal, with the Pentagon accusing the Taliban of not meeting their commitment to reducing violence as agreed in the Doha deal.

The Taliban in turn has accused the US of breaching the agreement and insisted it will continue its “fight” if foreign troops do not leave Afghanistan by May.

Earlier this month, a bipartisan study group assigned by US Congress called on President Joe Biden’s administration to slow the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, remove the May 1 exit deadline and instead reduce the number of forces only as security conditions improve in the country.

The Taliban has said that such a move would have severe consequences and that Washington will be responsible for a future escalation.

The talks between the delegation representing the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban launched on September 12 of 2020, but progress has been slow and overshadowed by the high-level violence.


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 DoD/Air Force

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.



Privately-operated non-profit and for-profit charter schools have been around for 30 years[1] and are legal in 45 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam. To date, five states have been able to fend off these segregated outsourced schools that siphon billions of public dollars a year from under-funded public schools.

About 3.3 million students are currently enrolled in approximately 7,400 charter schools across the country, which make up less than eight percent of all schools in the country.[2] At 1,300, California is the state with the most privately-operated charter schools.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 3,100 charter schools run by unelected individuals closed between 2000–01 through 2017–18 (see this). That is a very high number of closures, especially in an 18-year time span. On average, that is about 172 privately-operated charter school closures per year.

It is not clear why, but the data chart from the federal government does not include the number of privately-operated charter schools that closed between 2018-19 through 2020-21. It also excludes the number of privately-operated charter schools that closed between 1991-92 through 1995–96, as well as the number of privately-operated charter schools that closed between 2001–02 through 2003–04.

The U.S. Department of Education provides data for only 18 of the 30 years that privately-operated charter schools have existed. About 11 years of data is left out. The three main reasons why privately-operated charter schools close are: financial malfeasance, mismanagement, and poor academic performance. Corruption, fraud, racketeering, and embezzlement are rampant in the charter school sector from coast to coast. News of arrests of charter school employees appears in the news nearly every week.

Assuming, conservatively speaking, that about 172 charter schools close every year on average, when 172 is multiplied by the 11 years outside the 2000-01 through 2017-18 time frame provided by the U.S. Department of Education, we get an additional 1,892 charter schools closed. This brings the grand total of closed charter schools to about 4,992 charter schools over a 30-year period. This is a reasonable estimate. No matter how you slice it, though, that is a lot of failed and closed charter schools—and in a short period of time. Does this sound like success? Should such a phenomenon continue to be endorsed, expanded, and celebrated? Great instability has haunted the segregated and deregulated charter school sector for three decades and upended the lives of thousands of poor and low-income black and brown families. If the last 30 years is any guide, hundreds more charter schools will fail and close in the coming years, leaving even more families out in the cold and more public schools without much-needed public dollars.

Supplementary Note

It is helpful to recall that, besides widespread corruption, nepotism, and failure in the deregulated charter school sector, privately-operated charter schools, on average, have fewer nurses and more inexperienced teachers than public schools, and they usually pay both less than their public school counterparts. Several states do not even require charter school teachers to be certified and many charter school teachers have no employer-provided retirement plan. Moreover, non-profit and for-profit charter schools frequently engage in discriminatory enrollment practices and typically oppose any efforts by teachers to unionize. Charter schools also tend to offer fewer programs, resources, and services than public schools. And while the academic performance of many brick-and-mortar charter schools is unimpressive, the academic track record for cyber charter schools remains abysmal. In addition, all charter schools are run by unelected individuals and many spend millions of dollars on advertising (just like a private business). Last but not least, accountability, oversight, and transparency remain stubborn problems in the segregated charter school sector.


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.

Shawgi Tell, PhD, is author of the book “Charter School Report Card.” His main research interests include charter schools, neoliberal education policy, privatization and political economy. He can be reached at [email protected].


[1] Minnesota established the nation’s first charter school law in 1991 and opened the nation’s first charter school in 1992.

[2] It is worth noting that student waitlists at charter schools are frequently inflated and unreliable. In fact, many seats regularly go empty at many charter schools.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Privately Operated Charter Schools in America: History and Analysis
  • Tags:

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.




Samuel Moyn’s vicious and unprincipled attack on Michael Ratner, one of the finest human rights attorneys of our time, was published in the New York Review of Books (NYRB) on September 1. Moyn singles out Ratner as a whipping boy to support his own bizarre theory that punishing war crimes prolongs war by making it more palatable.

He disingenuously claims that enforcing the Geneva Conventions and opposing illegal wars are mutually exclusive. As Dexter Filkins noted in the New Yorker, Moyn’s “logic would favor incinerating entire cities, Tokyo style, if the resulting spectacles of agony lead more people to oppose American power.”

Moyn takes Ratner—the long-time president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) who died in 2016—to task for filing Rasul v. Bush to give people indefinitely detained at Guantánamo the constitutional right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention. Moyn would have us turn our backs on people who are tortured, massacred and locked up indefinitely. He apparently agrees with the preposterous claim of George W. Bush’s first attorney general Alberto Gonzales (who facilitated the US torture program) that the Geneva Conventions—which classify torture as a war crime—were “quaint” and “obsolete.”

In his polemic, Moyn makes the false and astounding claim that “no one, perhaps has done more than [Ratner] to enable a novel, sanitized version of permanent war.” Without a shred of evidence, Moyn callously alleges that Ratner “laundered the inhumanity” of “war that thus became endless, legal, and humane.” Moyn has apparently never visited Guantánamo, which many have called a concentration camp, where prisoners were ruthlessly tortured and held for years without charges. Although Barack Obama ended Bush’s torture program, prisoners at Guantánamo were violently force-fed on Obama’s watch, which constitutes torture.

The Supreme Court agreed with Ratner, Joseph Margulies and CCR in Rasul. Margulies, who was lead counsel in the case, told me that Rasul “doesn’t humanize [the war on terror], nor does it rationalize or legalize it. To put it differently, even if we had never filed, fought, and won Rasul, the country would still be in the exact same, endless war.” Furthermore, as Ratner wrote in his autobiography, Moving the Bar: My Life as a Radical Lawyer, the New York Times called Rasul “the most important civil rights case in 50 years.”

It is the advent of drone warfare, not the legal work of Ratner, Margulies and CCR, that has “sanitized” the war on terror. The development of drones has nothing to do with their litigation and everything to do with enriching defense contractors and protecting pilots from harm so Americans don’t have to see body bags. Even so, drone “pilots” suffer from PTSD, while killing an inordinate number of civilians in the process.

“Moyn seems to think opposing war and opposing torture in war are at odds. Ratner is in fact Exhibit A that they are not. He opposed both to the end,” ACLU legal director David Cole tweeted.

Indeed, Ratner was a long-time opponent of illegal US wars. He attempted to enforce the War Powers Resolution in 1982 after Ronald Reagan sent “military advisers” to El Salvador.

Ratner sued George H.W. Bush (unsuccessfully) to require congressional authorization for the first Gulf War. In 1991, Ratner organized a war crimes tribunal and condemned US aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunal called “the supreme international crime.” In 1999, he condemned the US-led NATO bombing of Kosovo as “a crime of aggression.” In 2001, Ratner and University of Pittsburgh law professor Jules Lobel wrote in JURIST that Bush’s war plan in Afghanistan violated international law. Shortly thereafter, Ratner told a meeting of the National Lawyers Guild (of which he was a past president) that the 9/11 attacks were not acts of war but rather crimes against humanity.

In 2002, Ratner and his colleagues at CCR wrote in the New York Times that the “prohibition on aggression constitutes a fundamental norm of international law and can be violated by no nation.” In 2006, Ratner gave the keynote address at an international commission of inquiry on the Bush administration’s crimes against humanity and war crimes, including the illegality of the Iraq war. In 2007, Ratner wrote in a testimonial for my book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, “From an illegal aggressive war in Iraq to torture, here it all is—the six major ways the Bush administration has made America an outlaw state.”

Like Ratner, Canadian law professor Michael Mandel thought the Kosovo bombing spelled the death knell for enforcement of the United Nations Charter’s proscription of the use of military force unless conducted in self-defense or sanctioned by the Security Council. The Charter defines aggression as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

In his book, How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes against Humanity, Mandel argues that the NATO Kosovo bombing set the precedent for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “It broke a fundamental legal and psychological barrier,” Mandel wrote. “When Pentagon guru Richard Perle ‘thanked God’ for the death of the UN, the first precedent he could cite in justification of overthrowing the Security Council’s legal supremacy in matters of war and peace was Kosovo.”

Moyn, a Yale law professor who purports to be an expert on legal strategy, has never practiced law. Perhaps that is why he mentions the International Criminal Court (ICC) only once in his book, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. In that single reference, Moyn falsely states that the ICC doesn’t target wars of aggression, writing, “[The ICC] fulfilled the legacy of Nuremberg, except in omitting its signature accomplishment of criminalizing illegal war itself.”

If Moyn had read the Rome Statute which established the ICC, he would see that one of the four crimes punished under the statute is the crime of aggression, which is defined as “the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”

But the ICC couldn’t prosecute the crime of aggression when Ratner was still alive because the aggression amendments didn’t come into force until 2018, two years after Ratner died. Moreover, neither Iraq, Afghanistan nor the United States have ratified the amendments, making it impossible to punish aggression unless the UN Security Council so directs. With the US veto on the Council, that will not happen.

Margulies said that “only a critic who has never represented a client could suggest that it would’ve been better to file litigation that had no remote chance of success instead of trying to prevent a prisoner’s lawless and inhumane detention. The very suggestion is insulting, and Michael understood that better than anyone.”

In fact, three cases filed by other lawyers that challenged the legality of the Iraq war were thrown out of court by three different federal courts of appeals. The First Circuit ruled in 2003 that active-duty members of the US military and members of Congress had no “standing” to object to the legality of the war before it started, because any harm to them would be speculative. In 2010, the Third Circuit found that New Jersey Peace Action, two mothers of children who had completed multiple tours of duty in Iraq, and an Iraq war veteran had no “standing” to contest the war’s lawfulness because they couldn’t show they had been personally harmed. And in 2017, the Ninth Circuit held in a case filed by an Iraqi woman that defendants Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld had immunity from civil lawsuits.

Margulies also told me, “the implication that Rasul somehow enabled the forever wars is simply incorrect. Because of the war in Afghanistan, the first phase of the war on terror was fought on the ground, which predictably led the US to capture and interrogate a great many prisoners. But this phase of the war has long since been supplanted by an aspiration to what the NSA calls ‘information dominance.’” Margulies added, “More than anything, the war on terror is now a war of continuous, global surveillance followed episodically by drone strikes. It is a war about signals more than soldiers. Nothing in Rasul, or any of the detention litigation, has the slightest effect on this new phase.”

“And why would anyone think that had torture continued, the war on terror would have come to a halt? That’s Moyn’s premise, for which he offers not a scintilla of evidence,” Cole, a former CCR staff attorney, tweeted. “To say it’s deeply implausible is an understatement. And let’s suppose for a minute that allowing torture to continue would contribute to ending the war. Are lawyers supposed to look the other way, to sacrifice their clients in the quixotic hope that allowing them to be tortured will accelerate the end of the war?”

In Moyn’s book titled Humane, he sardonically takes Ratner and his CCR colleagues to task for “editing war crimes out of your wars.” Throughout his NYRB screed, Moyn contradicts himself in an attempt to support his sketchy narrative, alternately maintaining that Ratner wanted to humanize war and Ratner didn’t want to humanize war (“Ratner’s objective was never really to make American war more humane”).

Bill Goodman was CCR’s Legal Director on 9/11. “Our options were to devise legal strategies that challenged kidnappings, detentions, tortures, and murders by the US military that followed 9/11 or to do nothing,” he told me. “Even if the litigation failed—and it was a very difficult strategy—it could at least serve the purpose of publicizing these outrages. To do nothing was to acknowledge that democracy and the law were helpless in the face of unconstrained exercise of malignant power,” Goodman said. “Under Michael’s leadership we chose to act rather than to falter. I have no regrets. Moyn’s approach—to do nothing—is unacceptable.”

Moyn makes the ludicrous claim that Ratner’s goal, like that of “some conservatives,” was to “place the war on terror on a solid legal foundation.” On the contrary, Ratner wrote in his chapter published in my book, The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse, “Preventive detention is a line that should never be crossed. A central aspect of human liberty that has taken centuries to win is that no person shall be imprisoned unless he or she is charged and tried.” He continued, “If you can take away those rights and simply grab someone by the scruff of the neck and throw them into some offshore penal colony because they are non-citizen Muslims, those deprivations of rights will be employed against all. … This is the power of a police state and not a democracy.”

Lobel, who followed Ratner as president of CCR, told Democracy Now! that Ratner “never backed down from a fight against oppression, against injustice, no matter how difficult the odds, no matter how hopeless the case seemed to be.” Lobel said, “Michael was brilliant in combining legal advocacy and political advocacy. … He loved people all around the globe. He represented them, met with them, shared their misery, shared their suffering.”

Ratner spent his life fighting tirelessly for the poor and the oppressed. He sued Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Rumsfeld, the FBI and the Pentagon for their violations of law. He challenged US policy in Cuba, Iraq, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Israel/Palestine. Ratner was lead counsel for whistleblower Julian Assange, who is facing 175 years in prison for exposing US war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.

To suggest, as Moyn cynically does, that Michael Ratner has prolonged wars by enforcing the rights of the most vulnerable, is sheer nonsense. One can’t help but think that Moyn has made Ratner the target of his condemnation not only in an attempt to bolster his absurd theory, but also to sell copies of his misguided book.


Michael  Ratner’s legacy will live.

See Michael Ratner’s articles:

Moving Toward a Police State (or Have We Arrived?)

By Michael Ratner, December 30, 2017

The Case against George W. Bush under Torture Law

By Michael Ratner, March 26, 2011


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 JURIST.

Marjorie Cohn, a former criminal defense attorney, is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, past president of the National Lawyers Guild, and member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She has published four books about the “war on terror”: Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law; The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse; Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent; and Drones and Targeting Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. 

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Jonathan McIntosh, CC BY 2.5, via 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.



How significant is it that the two top FDA officials responsible for vaccine research resigned last week and this week signed a letter in The Lancet that strongly warns against vaccine boosters?

This is a remarkable sign that the project of government-managed virus mitigation is in the final stages before falling apart. 

The booster has already been promoted by top lockdown advocates Neil Ferguson of Imperial College and Anthony Fauci of NIH, even in the face of rising public incredulity toward their “expert” advice. For these two FDA officials to go on record with grave doubts – and their perspective is certainly backed by the unimpressive booster experience in Israel – introduces a major break in the narrative that the experts in charge deserve our trust and deference.

What’s at stake here? It’s about more than the boosters. It’s about the whole experience of taking away the control of health management from individuals and medical professionals and handing it over to modelers and government officials with coercive power.

From the first week of March 2020, the US embarked on a wild experiment in virus mitigation, deploying a series of measures with a sweep and scope that had never previously been attempted, not in modern times and not even in ancient times. The litany of controls and tactics is long. Many of these measures survive in most parts of the US. The retail landscape is still filled with plexiglass. We are still invited to sanitize ourselves when going indoors. People still mask up in proximity to others. The “Karens” of the world are still actively shaming and denouncing anyone suspected of non-compliance.

The vaccine push has been particularly divisive, with President Biden actively encouraging “anger” at those who don’t get the jab, even as he refuses to acknowledge the existence of infection-induced immunities. In several cities, people who refuse vaccines are being denied active participation in civic life, and a populist movement is rising up that scapegoats the refuseniks as the only reason that the virus continues to be a problem.

All these measures were deployed in waves of controls. It all began with event cancellations and school closures. It continued with travel bans, most of which are still in place. Sanitization and plexiglass were next. Masks were rolled out and then mandated. The principle of forced human separation governed social interactions. Capacity limits indoors were a common feature. The US example inspired many governments around the world to adopt these NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) and take away the liberties of the people.

At each stage of control, there were new claims that we’ve finally found the answer, the key technique that would finally slow and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Nothing worked, as the virus seemed to follow its own course regardless of all these measures. Indeed there was no observable difference anywhere in the world based on whether and to what extent any of these measures were deployed.

Finally came the pharmaceutical interventions, voluntary at first but gradually mandatory, just as with each previous protocol began as a recommendation until it was mandated.

At no point in these 19 months have we seen a clear admission of failure on the part of government officials. Indeed, it’s mostly been the opposite, as the agencies double down, claiming effectiveness while citing no data or studies, while social media companies backed it all by taking down contrarian posts and brazenly deleting accounts of people who dare cite dissenting science.

The vaccine was the biggest gamble of all simply because the program was so expensive, so personal, and so wildly oversold. Even those of us who opposed every other mandate had hopes that the vaccines would finally end the public panic and provide governments a way to back out of all the other strategies that had failed.

That did not happen.

Most people believed that the vaccine would work like many others before them to block infection and spread. In this, people were merely believing what the head of the CDC said. “Our data from the C.D.C. today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick,” Rochelle Walinsky told Rachel Maddow. “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data.”

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” President Biden said, reflecting what was the common view in the summer of 2021.

That of course turned out not to be the case. The vaccines appear to have been helpful in mitigating against some severe outcomes but it did not achieve victory over the virus. Israel’s surge in infections in August was among the fully vaccinated. The same happened in the UK and Scotland, and that precise result began to hit the US in September. Indeed, we all have vaccinated friends who caught the virus and were sick for days. Meanwhile, team natural immunity has received a huge boost from a large study in Israel that demonstrated that recovered Covid cases gain far more protection than is conferred by the vaccine.

The fallback position then became the booster. Surely this is the answer! Israel was first to mandate them. Here again, the problems began to show, as yet another magic bullet of disease mitigation failed. Then the inevitable headline came: Israel preparing for possible fourth COVID vaccine dose. So think about this because there is a sense in which the vaccines rank among the biggest failures: in a matter of a few short months, we’ve gone from the claim that they fully protect to they are pretty okay provided you get regularly scheduled boosters forever.

Now to the striking resignation of two top officials at the FDA who were in charge of vaccine safety and administration. It was the Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Vaccines Research, Marion Gruber and Phillip Kause. They gave no reason for their departure, which is scheduled for October and November.

The case is fascinating because

1) people rarely resign cushy government jobs unless a higher-paying, higher-prestige job in the private sector awaits, or

2) they are being pushed out. It’s rare for anyone in a position like this to resign over a principled matter of science. When I first read that they were going, I figured something else was up.

These days, extremely weird things are going on within the Biden administration. Even though his approval ratings are sinking, the president has to pretend that he has all the answers, that the science behind his mandates and virus war is universally settled, that anyone who disagrees with him is really just a political enemy. He has gone so far as to denounce, demonize, and legally threaten red-state governors who disagree with him.

This is a deep problem for actual scientists working within the bureaucracy because they know for sure that all of this is a pretense and that the government cannot win this war on the virus. They simply cannot preside over more false promises, especially when the whole of their professional training is about assessing the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

So what can they do? In this case, it appears they had to get away before they dropped a bombshell.

The bombshell is called “Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses.” It appears in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. The two top officials are among the authors. The article recommends against the Covid booster shot that the Biden administration, following Fauci’s advice, is suggesting as the key to making the vaccines work better and finally fulfill their promise.

Fauci and company are pushing boosters because they know what is coming. Essentially we are going the way of Israel: most everyone is vaccinated but the virus itself is not being controlled. More and more among those hospitalized and dying are vaccinated. This same trend is coming to the US. The boosters are a means by which government can save face, or so many believe.

The trouble now is that the top scientists at the FDA disagree. Further, they think that the push for boosters is courting problems. They think the current regime of one or two shots is working as well as one can expect. Nothing is gained on net from a booster, they say. There just isn’t enough evidence to take the risk of another booster, and another and another.

The authors knew this article was appearing. They knew that signing it under the FDA affiliation would lead to a push for their resignations. Life would get very difficult for both of them. They got ahead of the messaging and resigned before it came out. Very smart.

The signed article goes even further to warn of possible downsides. They point out that boosters might seem necessary because “variants expressing new antigens have evolved to the point at which immune responses to the original vaccine antigens no longer protect adequately against currently circulating viruses.” At the same time, there are possible side effects that could discredit all vaccines for a generation or more. “There could be risks,” they write, “if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines, or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines.”)

Bringing up such side effects is essentially a taboo topic. That this was written by two top FDA officials is nothing short of remarkable, especially because it comes at a time when the Biden administration is going all in on vaccine mandates. Meanwhile, studies are showing that for teenage boys, the vaccine poses a greater risk to them than Covid itself.

“For boys 16-17 without medical comorbidities, the rate of CAE is currently 2.1 to 3.5 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk, and 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at times of high weekly COVID-19 hospitalization.”

From the beginning of these lockdowns – along with all the masks, restrictions, bogus health advice from plexiglass to sanitizer to universal vaccine mandates and so on – it was clear that there would someday be hell to pay. They wrecked rights and liberties, crashed economies, traumatized a whole generation of children and other students, ran roughshod over religious freedom, and for what? There is zero evidence that any of this has made any difference. We are surrounded by the carnage they created.

The appearance of The Lancet article by two top FDA vaccine scientists is truly devastating and revealing because it undermines the last plausible tool to save the whole machinery of government disease management that has been deployed at such enormous social, cultural, and economic cost for 19 months. Not in our lifetimes has a policy failed so badly. The intellectual and political implications here are monumental. It means that the real Covid crisis – the task of assigning responsibility for all the collateral damage – has just begun.

In 2006, during the early years of the birth of lockdown ideology, the great epidemiologist Donald Henderson warned that if any of these restrictive measures were deployed for a pandemic, the result would be a “loss of trust in government” and “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.” Catastrophe is exactly what has happened. The current regime wants to point the finger toward the noncompliant. That is no longer believable. They cannot delay the inevitable for much longer: responsibility for this catastrophe belongs to those who embarked on this political experiment in the first place.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. [email protected]

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.



The roots of the Great Reset agenda can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution,” Cynthia Chung writes.

Klaus Schwab, the architect of the World Economic Forum (f. 1971), a leading, if not the leading, influencer and funder for what will set the course for world economic policy outside of government, has been the cause of much concern and suspicion since his announcement of “The Great Reset” agenda at the 50th annual meeting of the WEF in June 2020.

The Great Reset initiative is a somewhat vague call for the need for global stakeholders to coordinate a simultaneous “management” of the effects of COVID-19 on the global economy, which they have eerily named as “pandenomics.” This, we are told will be the new normal, the new reality that we will have to adjust ourselves to for the foreseeable future.

It should be known that at nearly its inception, the World Economic Forum had aligned itself with the Club of Rome, a think tank with an elite membership, founded in 1968, to address the problems of mankind. It was concluded by the Club of Rome in their extremely influential “Limits to Growth,” published in 1972, that such problems could not be solved on their own terms and that all were interrelated. In 1991, Club of Rome co-founder Sir Alexander King stated in the “The First Global Revolution” (an assessment of the first 30 years of the Club of Rome) that:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [emphasis added]

It is no surprise that with such a conclusion, part of the solution prescribed was the need for population control.

However, what forms of population control was Klaus Schwab in particular thinking of?

In the late 1960s, Schwab attended Harvard and among his teachers was Sir Henry Kissinger, whom he has described as among the top figures who have most influenced his thinking over the course of his life.

Henry Kissinger and his former pupil, Klaus Schwab, welcome former- UK PM Ted Heath at the 1980 WEF annual meeting. Source: World Economic Forum

To get a better idea of the kinds of influences Sir Henry Kissinger had on young Klaus Schwab, we should take a look at Kissinger’s infamous NSSM-200 report: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, otherwise known as “The Kissinger Report,” published in 1974. This report, declassified in 1989, was instrumental in transforming US foreign policy from pro-development/pro-industry to the promotion of under-development through totalitarian methods in support of population control. Kissinger states in the report:

“… if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s …[Financial] assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth … Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy … Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control … There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed ..” [emphasis added]

For Kissinger, the US foreign policy orientation was mistaken on its emphasis of ending hunger by providing the means of industrial and scientific development to poor nations, according to Kissinger, such an initiative would only lead to further global disequilibrium as the new middle classes would consume more, and waste strategic resources.

In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population” (1799), he wrote:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” [emphasis added]

As a staunch Malthusian, Kissinger believed that “nature” had provided the means to cull the herd, and by using economic policies that utilised the courting of the plague, famine and so forth, they were simply enforcing a natural hierarchy which was required for global stability.

In addition to this extremely worrisome ideology that is only a stone’s throw away from eugenics, there has also been a great deal of disturbance over the 2016 World Economic Forum video that goes through their 8 “predictions” for how the world will change by 2030, with the slogan “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

It is this slogan in particular that has probably caused the most panic amongst the average person questioning what the outcome of the Great Reset will truly look like.

It has also caused much confusion as to who or what is at the root in shaping this very eerie, Orwellian prediction of the future?

Many have come to think that this root is the Communist Party of China. However, whatever your thoughts may be on the Chinese government and the intentions of President Xi, the roots of the Great Reset agenda can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when an American, former Trotskyist who later joined the OSS, followed by the CIA, and went on to become the founding father of neo-conservatism, James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.”

In fact, it was the ideologies of Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.

The Strange Case and Many Faces of James Burnham

“[James Burnham is] the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the original proselytizer, in America, of the theory of ‘totalitarianism.’” – Christopher Hitchens, “For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports

It is understandably the source of some confusion as to how a former high level Trotskyist became the founder of the neo-conservative movement; with the Trotskyists calling him a traitor to his kind, and the neo-conservatives describing it as an almost road to Damascus conversion in ideology.

However, the truth of the matter is that it is neither.

That is, James Burnham never changed his beliefs and convictions at any point during his journey through Trotskyism, OSS/CIA intelligence to neo-conservatism, although he may have back-stabbed many along the way, and this two-part series will go through why this is the case.

James Burnham was born in 1905 in Chicago, Illinois, raised as a Roman Catholic, later rejecting Catholicism while studying at Princeton and professing atheism for the rest of his life until shortly before his death whereby he reportedly returned to the church. (1) He would graduate from Princeton followed by the Balliol College, Oxford University and in 1929 would become a professor in philosophy at the New York University.

It was during this period that Burnham met Sidney Hook, who was also a professor in philosophy at the New York University, and who professed to have converted Burnham to Marxism in his autobiography. In 1933, along with Sidney Hook, Burnham helped to organize the socialist organization, the American Workers Party (AWP).

It would not be long before Burnham found Trotsky’s use of “dialectical materialism” to explain the interplay between the human and the historical forces in his “History of the Russian Revolution” to be brilliant. As founder of the Red Army, Trotsky had dedicated his life to the spread of a worldwide Communist revolution, to which Stalin opposed in the form of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” ideology. In this ideology, Trotskyists were tactically trained to be militant experts at infighting, infiltration and disruption.

Among these tactics was “entryism,” in which an organisation encourages its members to join another, often larger organization, in an attempt to take over said organization or convert a large portion of its membership with its own ideology and directive.

The most well-known example of this technique was named the French Turn, when French Trotskyists in 1934 infiltrated the Section Francaise de l’International Ouvriere (SFIO, French Socialist Party) with the intention of winning over the more militant elements to their side.

That same year, Trotskyists in the Communist League of America (CLA) did a French turn on the American Workers Party, in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief adviser.

Burnham would continue the tactics of infiltrating and subverting other leftist parties and in 1935 attempted to do a French Turn on the much larger Socialist Party (SP), however, by 1937, the Trotskyists were expelled from the Socialist Party which led to the formation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at the end of the year. He would resign from the SWP in April 1940, and form the Workers Party only to resign less than two months later.

Burnham remained a “Trotskyist intellectual” from 1934 until 1940, using militant Trotskyist tactics against competing Marxist movements by turning their loyalties and ransacking their best talent. Although Burnham worked six years for the Trotskyists, as the new decade began, he renounced both Trotsky and “the ‘philosophy of Marxism’ dialectical materialism” altogether.

Perhaps Burnham was aware that the walls were closing in on Trotsky, and that it would only be a matter of six months from Burnham’s first renouncement that Trotsky would be assassinated by August 1940, at his compound outside Mexico City.

In February 1940 Burnham wrote “Science and Style: A Reply to Comrade Trotsky,” in which he broke with dialectical materialism, stressing the importance of the work of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s approach:

“Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.” [emphasis added]

He summed up his feelings in a letter of resignation from the Workers Party on May 21, 1940:

“I reject, as you know, the “philosophy of Marxism,” dialectical materialism. …

The general Marxian theory of “universal history”, to the extent that it has any empirical content, seems to me disproved by modern historical and anthropological investigation.

Marxian economics seems to me for the most part either false or obsolete or meaningless in application to contemporary economic phenomena. Those aspects of Marxian economics which retain validity do not seem to me to justify the theoretical structure of the economics.

Not only do I believe it meaningless to say that “socialism is inevitable” and false that socialism is “the only alternative to capitalism”; I consider that on the basis of the evidence now available to us a new form of exploitive society (which I call “managerial society”) is not only possible but is a more probable outcome of the present than socialism. …

On no ideological, theoretic or political ground, then, can I recognize, or do I feel, any bond or allegiance to the Workers Party (or to any other Marxist party). That is simply the case, and I can no longer pretend about it, either to myself or to others.” [emphasis added]

In 1941, Burnham would publish “The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World,” bringing him fame and fortune, listed by Henry Luce’s Life magazine as one of the top 100 outstanding books of 1924-1944. (2)

The Managerial Revolution

“We cannot understand the revolution by restricting our analysis to the war [WWII]; we must understand the war as a phase in the development of the revolution.” – James Burnham “The Managerial Revolution”

In Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution,” he makes the case that if socialism were possible, it would have occurred as an outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, but what happened instead was neither a reversion back to a capitalist system nor a transition to a socialist system, but rather a formation of a new organizational structure made up of an elite managerial class, the type of society he believed was in the process of replacing capitalism on a world scale.

He goes on to make the case that as seen with the transition from a feudal to a capitalist state being inevitable, so too will the transition from a capitalist to managerial state occur. And that ownership rights of production capabilities will no longer be owned by individuals but rather the state or institutions, he writes:

“Effective class domination and privilege does, it is true, require control over the instruments of production; but this need not be exercised through individual private property rights. It can be done through what might be called corporate rights, possessed not by individuals as such but by institutions: as was the case conspicuously with many societies in which a priestly class was dominant…”

Burnham proceeds to write:

“If, in a managerial society, no individuals are to hold comparable property rights, how can any group of individuals constitute a ruling class?

The answer is comparatively simple and, as already noted, not without historical analogues. The managers will exercise their control over the instruments of production and gain preference in the distribution of the products, not directly, through property rights vested in them as individuals, but indirectly, through their control of the state which in turn will own and control the instruments of production. The state – that is, the institutions which comprise the state – will, if we wish to put it that way, be the ‘property’ of the managers. And that will be quite enough to place them in the position of the ruling class.”

Burnham concedes that the ideologies required to facilitate this transition have not yet been fully worked out but goes on to say that they can be approximated:

“from several different but similar directions, by, for example: Leninism-Stalinism; fascism-nazism; and, at a more primitive level, by New Dealism and such less influential [at the time] American ideologies as ‘technocracy’. This, then, is the skeleton of the theory, expressed in the language of the struggle for power.”

This is to be sure, a rather confusing paragraph but becomes clearer when we understand it from the specific viewpoint of Burnham. As Burnham sees it, all these different avenues are methods in which to achieve his vision of a managerial society because each form stresses the importance of the state as the central coordinating power, and that such a state will be governed by his “managers”. Burnham considers the different moral implications in each scenario irrelevant, as he makes clear early on in his book, he has chosen to detach himself from such questions.

Burnham goes to explain that the support of the masses is necessary for the success of any revolution, this is why the masses must be led to believe that they will benefit from such a revolution, when in fact it is only to replace one ruling class with another and nothing changes for the underdog. He explains that this is the case with the dream of a socialist state, that the universal equality promised by socialism is just a fairy tale told to the people so that they fight for the establishment of a new ruling class, then they are told that achieving a socialist state will take many decades, and that essentially, a managerial system must be put in place in the meantime.

Burnham makes the case that this is what happened in both Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia:

“Nevertheless, it may still turn out that the new form of economy will be called ‘socialist.’ In those nations – Russia and Germany – which have advanced furthest toward the new [managerial] economy, ‘socialism’ or ‘national socialism’ is the term ordinarily used. The motivation for this terminology is not, naturally, the wish for scientific clarity but just the opposite. The word ‘socialism’ is used for ideological purposes in order to manipulate the favourable mass emotions attached to the historic socialist ideal of a free, classless, and international society and to hide the fact that the managerial economy is in actuality the basis for a new kind of exploiting, class society.”

Burnham continues:

“Those Nations – [Bolshevik] Russia, [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy – which have advanced furthest toward the managerial social structure are all of them, at present, totalitarian dictatorships…what distinguishes totalitarian dictatorship is the number of facets of life subject to the impact of the dictatorial rule. It is not merely political actions, in the narrower sense, that are involved; nearly every side of life, business and art and science and education and religion and recreation and morality are not merely influenced by but directly subjected to the totalitarian regime.

It should be noted that a totalitarian type of dictatorship would not have been possible in any age previous to our own. Totalitarianism presupposes the development of modern technology, especially of rapid communication and transportation. Without these latter, no government, no matter what its intentions, would have had at its disposal the physical means for coordinating so intimately so many of the aspects of life. Without rapid transportation and communication it was comparatively easy for men to keep many of their lives, out of reach of the government. This is no longer possible, or possible only to a much smaller degree, when governments today make deliberate use of the possibilities of modern technology.”

Orwell’s Second Thoughts on Burnham

Burnham would go on to state in his “The Managerial Revolution” that the Russian Revolution, WWI and its aftermath, the Versailles Treaty gave final proof that capitalist world politics could no longer work and had come to an end. He described WWI as the last war of the capitalists and WWII as the first, but not last war, of the managerial society. Burnham made it clear that many more wars would have to be fought after WWII before a managerial society could finally fully take hold.

This ongoing war would lead to the destruction of sovereign nation states, such that only a small number of great nations would survive, culminating into the nuclei of three “super-states”, which Burnham predicted would be centered around the United States, Germany and Japan. He goes on to predict that these super-states will never be able to conquer the other and will be engaged in permanent war until some unforeseeable time. He predicts that Russia would be broken in two, with the west being incorporated into the German sphere and the east into the Japanese sphere. (Note that this book was published in 1941, such that Burnham was clearly of the view that Nazi Germany and fascist Japan would be the victors of WWII.)

Burnham states that “sovereignty will be restricted to the few super-states.”

In fact, he goes so far as to state early on in his book that the managerial revolution is not a prediction of something that will occur in the future, it is something that has already begun and is in fact, in its final stages of becoming, that it has already successfully implemented itself worldwide and that the battle is essentially over.

The National Review, founded by James Burnham and William F. Buckley (more on this in part two), would like to put the veneer that although Orwell was critical of Burnham’s views that he was ultimately creatively inspired to write about it in his “1984” novel. Yes, inspired is one way to put it, or more aptly put, that he was horrified by Burnham’s vision and wrote his novel as a stark warning as to what would ultimately be the outcome of such monstrous theorizations, which he would to this day organise the zeitgeist of thought to be suspicious of anything resembling his neologisms such as “Big Brother”, “Thought Police”, “Two Minutes Hate”, “Room 101”, “memory hole”, “Newspeak”, “doublethink”, “unperson”,”thoughtcrime”, and “groupthink”.

George Orwell, (real name Eric Arthur Blair), first published his “Second Thoughts on James Burnham” in May 1946. The novel “1984” would be published in 1949.

In his essay he dissects Burnham’s proposed ideology that he outlines in his “The Managerial Revolution” and “The Machiavellians” subtitled “Defenders of Freedom.”

Orwell writes:

“It is clear that Burnham is fascinated by the spectacle of power, and that his sympathies were with Germany so long as Germany appeared to be winning the war…curiously enough, when one examines the predictions which Burnham has based on his general theory, one finds that in so far as they are verifiable, they have been falsified…It will be seen that Burnham’s predictions have not merely, when they were verifiable, turned out to be wrong, but that they have sometimes contradicted one another in a sensational way…Political predictions are usually wrong, because they are usually based on wish-thinking…Often the revealing factor is the date at which they are made…It will be seen that at each point Burnham is predicting a continuation of the thing that is happening…the tendency to do this is not simply a bad habit, like inaccuracy or exaggeration…It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice…

Power worship blurs political judgement because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. If the Japanese have conquered south Asia, then they will keep south Asia for ever, if the Germans have captured Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo…The rise and fall of empires, the disappearance of cultures and religions, are expected to happen with earthquake suddenness, and processes which have barely started are talked about as though they were already at an end. Burnham’s writings are full of apocalyptic visions…Within the space of five years Burnham foretold the domination of Russia by Germany and of Germany by Russia. In each case he was obeying the same instinct: the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible.”

Interestingly, and happily we hear, George Orwell does not take Burnham’s predictions of a managerial revolution as set in stone, but rather, has shown itself within a short period of time to be a little too full of wishful thinking and bent on worshipping the power of the moment. However, this does not mean we must not take heed to the orchestrations of such mad men.

In Part two of this series, I will discuss Burnham’s entry into the OSS then CIA, how he became the founder of the neo-conservative movement and what are the implications for today’s world, especially concerning the Great Reset initiative.


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.

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada). The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/


(1) Priscilla Buckley, “James Burnham 1905–1987.” National Review, July 11, 1987, p. 35.

(2) Canby, Henry Seidel. “The 100 Outstanding Books of 1924–1944”. Life, 14 August 1944. Chosen in collaboration with the magazine’s editors.

Pfizer Admits Israel Is the Great COVID-19 Vaccine Experiment

September 21st, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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.



Pfizer admits it’s treating Israel as a unique “laboratory” to assess COVID jab effects. Whatever happens in Israel can reliably be expected to happen elsewhere, months later

Pfizer entered into an exclusivity agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Health, so the only COVID shot available is Pfizer’s. The Pfizer shot has a higher risk for heart inflammation among young men than some of the other COVID shots, but Israeli youth have no option but to get the most dangerous one

Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness in December 2020 to 39% by late July when the Delta strain became predominant in Israel. In response to obvious vaccine failure, Israel started giving out third boosters at the end of July 2021

Vaccine failure is also evident in Israeli data showing fully vaccinated are at higher risk of severe illness when infected with SARS-CoV-2 or any of its variants than unvaccinated, and now make up the bulk of COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths

Natural immunity is far superior to the protection you get from the COVID shot, because when you recover from the infection, your body makes antibodies against all five proteins of the virus, plus memory T cells that remain even once antibody levels diminish


According to a recent Israeli news report, which I posted on Twitter1 September 13, 2021, Pfizer admits it’s treating Israel as a unique “laboratory” to assess COVID jab effects. Whatever happens in Israel can reliably be expected to happen everywhere else as well, some months later.

In other words, the Israeli population is one giant test group — without a control group, unfortunately — and as noted by the news anchors, the people really should have been informed that they were part of one of the biggest medical experiments in human history.

Pfizer entered into an exclusivity agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Health at the outset, so the only COVID shot available is Pfizer’s. As noted by the news anchor, we now realize that the Pfizer shot has a higher risk for heart inflammation among young men than some of the other COVID shots, but Israeli youth have no option but to get the most dangerous one.

Israel Rolls Out Booster Shots

Israel was one of the first countries to implement draconian vaccination mandates, even though the Pfizer shot was completely experimental. Israelis were told they could not enter certain venues without a vaccination card, such as restaurants, gyms, swimming pools and hotels.

As a result, they now have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. As of mid-September 2021, nearly 14.6 million doses had been administered.2 At two doses, that would give them a vaccination rate of 80.5%. It’s probably a bit less than that, because Israel started giving out third boosters at the end of July 2021.3

The first group to qualify for a third shot were seniors over the age of 60. Less than three weeks later, eligibility expanded to include people over the age of 40, as well as pregnant women, teachers and health care workers, even if they’re younger than 40. By the end of August 2021, boosters were offered to all previously vaccinated individuals, all the way down to the age of 12.4

By the second week of September 2021, when an estimated 2.8 million Israelis had received a third dose, a possible fourth dose was already being prepared.5

Health Ministry director general Nachman Ash told Radio 103FM they still don’t know when a fourth dose might be needed,6 but clearly, there’s no indication that the boosters won’t continue. And each time that happens, the people will forfeit their freedoms all over again, until they get the next shot.

Israeli Data Considered the Best Around

If there’s a silver lining to this experiment, it’s that Israel at least appears to be far more diligent and transparent in its data collection than the U.S. The data coming out of Israel is considered by many to be the best in the world because of their commitment to transparency. As explained by Science magazine:7

“The nation of 9.3 million … has a robust public health infrastructure and a population wholly enrolled in HMOs that track them closely, allowing it to produce high-quality, real-world data on how well vaccines are working …

Israel’s HMOs … track demographics, comorbidities, and a trove of coronavirus metrics on infections, illnesses, and deaths. ‘We have rich individual-level data that allows us to provide real-world evidence in near–real time,’ [Clalit Health Services chief innovation officer, Ran] Balicer says …

Now, the effects of waning immunity may be beginning to show in Israelis vaccinated in early winter; a preprint8 published last month … found that protection from COVID-19 infection during June and July dropped in proportion to the length of time since an individual was vaccinated. People vaccinated in January had a 2.26 times greater risk for a breakthrough infection than those vaccinated in April.”

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on U.S. data to get a clear idea of how the COVID shots are working, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has chosen not to track all breakthrough cases. As reported by ProPublica,9 the CDC stopped tracking and reporting all breakthrough cases May 1, 2021, opting to log only those that result in hospitalization and/or death.

As noted in the article, this irrational decision has “left the nation with a muddled understanding of COVID-19’s impact on the vaccinated.” It also prevents us from understanding how variants are spreading and whether those who have received the jab can still develop so-called “long-haul syndrome.” Individual states are also setting their own criteria for how they collect data on breakthrough cases, and this patchwork muddies the waters even further.

September 10, 2021, National File posted a shocking video10 on Twitter featuring senior doctors and a North Carolina marketing director discussing how they would count recovered COVID patients as active COVID hospitalization cases in an effort to inflate hospitalization rates. Why? For no other reason than to scare people into getting the jab. It’s a marketing ploy.

Additionally, a study showed nearly half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms or are asymptomatic. They were hospitalized for some other reason and just happened to test positive.11 These and other data manipulations discussed in “CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines” make U.S. data on infection, hospitalization and mortality rates near useless.

Clear Evidence of Vaccine Failure

The boosters in Israel were rolled out in response to obvious vaccine failure. Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness in December 2020, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant.12,13 While the country boasts one of the highest fully vaccinated rates in the world, they now also have one of the highest daily infection rates.14 So much for the hallowed concept of vaccine-induced herd immunity.

August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.15

The vaccinated are not only susceptible to testing positive, though: They’re also increasingly likely to experience serious disease when infected. Double-jabbed Israelis started making up the bulk of serious COVID-19 infections in July 2021, and by mid-August, 59% of serious cases were among those who had received two COVID injections.16

Others have cited even higher numbers. August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients were fully vaccinated, and that they made up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.17

August 20, 2021, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted that the Israeli data “suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early,”18 and just like the Israeli Ministry of Health, the CDC’s answer to this dilemma is simply more shots, as if that’s going to solve anything.

Mass Vaccination Actually Drives Mutations

Natural immunity is far superior to the protection you get from the COVID shot. Why? Largely because it works on more levels to provide a far more comprehensive and robust immune response. When you recover from the infection, your body makes antibodies against all five proteins of the virus, plus memory T cells that remain even once antibody levels diminish.

This provides lifelong protection, unless you have impaired immune function. The immunity you receive from the COVID jab is in the form of just one type of antibody — the antibody against the original SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. If that spike protein sufficiently mutates, those antibodies become useless.

As warned by Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche,19 those specific antibodies are also more robust than the nonspecific antibodies you get from natural infection, so they overtake any natural antibodies you may have.

Aside from that, mass vaccination also creates evolutionary pressure that drives the production of mutations. While most mutations result in milder versions of greater infectivity, it could also result in more deadly variations.

This is particularly true when a vaccine is “leaky,” meaning it doesn’t fully prevent infection (which none of the COVID shots does). Just like when you overuse an antibiotic that fails to eradicate the bacteria, which allows antibiotic-resistant bacteria to flourish, overuse of a leaky vaccine can pressure a virus to become more lethal.20,21

In an open letter22 to the World Health Organization dated March 6, 2021, Bossche warned that implementing a global mass vaccination campaign during the height of the pandemic could create an “uncontrollable monster” where evolutionary pressure will force the emergence of new and potentially more dangerous mutations.

“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines,” Bossche wrote.23

Israeli Data Confirm COVID Jab Increases Infection Risk

Real-world data from Israel seem to confirm Bossche’s fears, showing those who have received the COVID jab are 6.72 times more likely to get infected than people with natural immunity.24,25,26

Disturbingly, a study27 posted August 23, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv warns the Delta variant “is posed to acquire complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines.”

The researchers found that, if four common mutations were to occur simultaneously in the receptor binding domain of the Delta variant, the resulting virus would not only be immune to the neutralizing antibodies produced in response to Pfizer’s injection, but it would also enhance the infectivity of the virus.

This could essentially turn into a worst-case scenario that sets up those who have received the Pfizer shots for more severe illness when exposed to the virus than they would have experienced had they not gotten the shots.

Will Boosters Fail?

Initial reports from Israel suggest the third Pfizer dose has improved protection in the over-60 group, compared to those who only got two doses of Pfizer.28 According to Reuters:29

“Breaking down statistics from Israel’s Gertner Institute and KI Institute, ministry officials said that among people aged 60 and over, the protection against infection provided from 10 days after a third dose was four times higher than after two doses. A third jab for over 60-year-olds offered five to six times greater protection after 10 days with regard to serious illness and hospitalization.”

However, anyone who thinks one or more booster shots are the answer to SARS-CoV-2 is likely fooling themselves. Time will tell if the third booster will rein in hospitalization and death rates, but I’m not optimistic.

Knowing what we already know about the risks of these shots and their tendency to encourage mutations, it seems reasonable to suspect that all we’re doing is digging ourselves an ever-deeper, ever-wider hole that’s going to be increasingly difficult to get out of.

Dvir Aran, a biomedical data scientist at the Israel Institute of Technology, doesn’t seem very hopeful either, telling Science the surge in COVID-19 cases is already so steep, “even if you get two-thirds of those 60-plus [boosted], it’s just gonna give us another week, maybe two weeks until our hospitals are flooded” again.30

Older Than 50: 60% Who Die From COVID Are Double Vaxxed

Data from the U.K. — where available COVID shots include Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen — are also starting to show vaccine failure, at least among older adults.

As of August 15, 2021, 58% of COVID patients admitted to hospital who were over the age of 50 had received two COVID jabs and 10% had received one dose. So, partially or fully “vaccinated” individuals made up 68% of hospitalizations.31

Only in the 50 and younger category were a majority, 74%, of hospitalizations among the unvaccinated. The same applies to deaths. Unvaccinated only make up the majority of COVID deaths in the under-50 age group. In the over-50 group, the clear majority, 70%, are either partially or fully “vaccinated.”

It’s also unclear whether hospitals in the U.K. are still designating anyone who is admitted and tests positive with a PCR test as a “COVID patient.” If so, people with broken bones or any number of other health problems who have no symptoms of COVID-19 at all might be unfairly lumped into the “unvaccinated COVID patient” total.

Why Do Naturally Immune Need the COVID Shot?

As explained earlier, natural immunity is far superior and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. This is a long-held medical fact that has been tossed aside as too inconvenient to matter in COVID-19. Instead, everyone, including those who have recovered from the infection, are told they need to get the shots.

In a recent CNN interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked why people with natural immunity are required to get the COVID shot even though they’re likely more protected than “vaccinated” people. His reply is telling:32

“That’s a really good point. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that.”

Natural Immunity Is the Best Answer

While Fauci is feigning ignorance, it’s quite clear that the way out of this pandemic is through natural herd immunity. The COVID shots, and now boosters, will undoubtedly continue to drive mutations that evade the vaccine-induced antibodies, resulting in a never-ending cycle of injections.

At this point, we know there’s no reason to fear COVID-19. Overall, its lethality is on par with the common flu.33,34,35,36,37 Provided you’re not in a nursing home or have multiple comorbidities, your chances of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.74%, on average.38

We also know there are several early treatment protocols that are very effective, such as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance I-MASK+39 protocol, the Zelenko protocol,40 and nebulized peroxide, detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper41 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots in the national Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), on the other hand, exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and if you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).42

Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. In its 15-year history, it has paid out just 29 claims, fewer than 1 in 10.43,44,45 You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. This means a retired person cannot qualify even if they die or end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.

To get an idea of what the risks actually are, consider reviewing some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world, a website dedicated to giving a voice to those injured by COVID shots.

Sen. Warren Threatens Amazon to Ban ‘The Truth About COVID-19’

Since the publication of my latest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” which became an instant best seller on Amazon.com, there’s been a significant increase in calls for censorship and ruthless attacks against me.

Most recently, so-called “progressive” U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in an outrageous, slanderous and basically unconstitutional attempt to suppress free speech, sent a letter to Amazon, demanding an “immediate review” of their algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation.”

Warren specifically singled out “The Truth About COVID-19” as a prime example of “highly ranked and favorably tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures” that she wants to see banned from sale.

Two days later, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., followed in Warren’s footsteps, sending letters to Facebook and Amazon, calling for more prolific censorship of vaccine information. Even President Joe Biden has recently used a debunked report as his sole source to call for my censorship.

Sadly, these attacks are being levied by the very people elected to safeguard democracy and our Constitutional rights. Essentially, what they are calling for is modern-day book burning. This is a democracy, not a monarchy.


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.


1 Twitter Dr. Mercola September 13, 2021

2 Graphics.Reuters Israeli Vaccination Data

3, 28, 29 Reuters August 22, 2021

4 Reuters August 29, 2021

5, 6 Bloomberg September 12, 2021

7, 16, 30 Science August 16, 2021

8 medRxiv July 31, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.29.21261317 (PDF)

9 ProPublica August 20, 2021

10 Twitter National File September 10, 2021

11 The Atlantic September 13, 2021

12 CNBC July 23, 2021

13 The BMJ Opinion August 23, 2021

14 The Epoch Times August 30, 2021

15 Bloomberg August 1, 2021 (Archived)

17 American Faith August 8, 2021

18 BPR August 20, 2021

19 geertvandenbossche.org

20 PLOS Biology July 2015; 13(7): e1002198

21 Quanta Magazine May 10, 2018

22, 23 geertvandenbossche.org Letter to the WHO March 6, 2021 (PDF)

24 David Rosenberg 7 July 13, 2021

25 Sharylattkisson.com August 8, 2021

26 Sharylattkisson.com August 6, 2021

27 bioRxiv August 23, 2021 DOI: 10.1102/2021.08.11.457114

31 Evening Standard August 20, 2021

32 Twitter Eli Klein September 10, 2021

33 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)

34, 38 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

35 Breitbart May 7, 2020

36 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

37 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

39 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol

40 Zelenko protocol

41 Science, Public Health Policy and The Law July 2020; 1: 4-22 (PDF)

42 Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar CICP March 22, 2021 (PDF)

43 Life Site News June 15, 2021

44 Insurance Journal August 14, 2020

45 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

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.



In a speech titled “State of American Democracy” at an event held at Chatham House, London on September 17, 2021, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that capitalism “has not served (the U.S.) economy as well as it should”. Yet Pelosi, who argued that “you cannot have a system where the success of some springs from the exploitation of the workers”, has over the years demonstrated her support for corporate interests over those of workers. She has also been a keen backer of the Military Industry and the National Security State in the wasteful wars of regime change which have hugely profited a few while costing her country trillions of dollars that could have been purposefully spent on alleviating poverty, tackling homelessness and giving young people a debt-free college education.

Pelosi’s statement will inevitably invite an examination of her record in confronting the excesses of capitalism in all its manifestations during her political career.

Where was she when the out-of-control investment banks were bailed out after bringing the US economy to the brink of ruin in the late 2000s? Pelosi voted to bail them out because they were “too big to fail”. But more damming, Pelosi did nothing to save those who had their homes and properties foreclosed after being set up to fail by the financial institutions.

Indeed, she has accepted election contributions from the criminally-orientated Goldman Sachs which made a fortune by betting against its own clients prior to the aforementioned financial meltdown.

More recently, Pelosi was not active in attempting to extend the moratorium of evictions caused by the prevailing circumstances of the covid-era. Nor has she vigorously sought to extinguish student loan debt.

She is a great supporter of the US National Security State and its financial and morally costly policy of regime change. She stood up and applauded the C.I.A. stooge Juan Guaido when President Donald Trump pointed him out at the State of the Union Address during which Pelosi theatrically tore up her copy of Trump’s speech.

Pelosi’s support for Guaido, whom the US was using as the figurehead of an opposition movement designed to overthrow the legitimate government of Venezuela, is not surprising given that she has received campaign money from powerful elements within the Military Industry such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

This sheds light on the hypocrisy of so-called “liberal” support for interventionist wars on the grounds of “humanitarian bombing”. It explains why Pelosi the “liberal” not only supported the decade-long endeavour by the United States and its regional allies to overthrow the government of Syria, she opposed Trump’s policy of getting out of Syria (the eastern part of which the U.S. illegally occupies), and continues to support the harsh regime of sanctions against the Ba’athist-led nation which after frustrating the concerted effort to destroy it, is in desperate need of all the resources it can muster from reconstruction. In 2019, Pelosi had even tweeted that Trump’s anti-Syrian sanctions package was not strong enough.

Today, the wealthiest corporations get away with paying minimal or no tax at all while making tens of billions in profits. That lost revenue together with the trillions lost through futile efforts made at effecting regime change and nation building such as in Afghanistan (described as a “wealth transfer from U.S. taxpayers to military contractors”) could be better spent at alleviating poverty, tackling homelessness, and providing young people with a debt-free college education.

Pelosi is a wealthy woman. If she was genuinely left-wing, she could be described as a “Champagne Socialist”. As things stand she perfectly captures the appellation of what is pejoratively termed a “Shitlib”.


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.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He writes on his blog site, Adeyinka, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Oil-on-Canvas by Rebecca Lazinger, 2020)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.



According to the CDC, as of April 26, 2021, 3,427,321 people died from all causes in the United States in 2020. In comparison, 2,854,838 people died from all causes in the US in 2019 of which the CDC says 345,323 died from Covid-19. Trouble is we know a large percentage of these deaths were “with” Covid, not necessarily “from” Covid.

Yes, the total number of deaths was up in 2020 but the fact is we really don’t know exactly how many were attributable to Covid alone. Some estimates suggest the actual mortality from Covid is in the seven percent range of the CDC estimates, suggesting that 93 percent of the deaths were due to something else.

We do know the CDC says that Covid-19 is lethal to .026 percent of those infected meaning 99.74 percent survive. So if there were 345,323 deaths in 2020, allegedly due to Covid-19 that would mean only about 13 Million people were actually infected with Covid? But that doesn’t square with a recent report from the National Institute of Health (NIH) published September 7th, 2021, referencing a Nature magazine article that estimated the actual number of Covid-19 infections in 2020 was over 100 Million?

Using the CDC’s data we can calculate that 345,323 deaths would have meant 13 Million were infected assuming the CDC’s .026 percent mortality rate is accurate. If the Nature article is accurate that means Covid-19 is actually much less lethal than the CDC says. Somebody is lying through their teeth.

Aging Americans

It’s no secret the US has a rapidly aging population. According to the US Census Bureau there were over 54 million people age 65 and over in 2019. Of these more than 13 million are over age 80. According to the CDC the average life expectancy for US males is 76 and for females 81.

So virtually the entire population age 80+ is beyond their normal life expectancy. And according to the CDC 85 percent of people over age 65 have at least one of the following six chronic health conditions: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cancer, or arthritis. And 56 percent (over half) have at least two chronic health conditions.

Obviously as one ages the probability of suffering from chronic health ailments goes up. Interestingly, the CDC does not list obesity as a chronic health ailment. According to The National Conference of State Legislatures obesity is a big deal. In their September 2014 report they said:

Obesity, a common and costly health issue that increases risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, affects more than one-third of adults and 17 percent of youth in the United States. By the numbers, 78 million adults and 12 million children are obese—figures many regard as an epidemic…

So way back in 2014 it was obvious the US was suffering from an obesity “epidemic” according to this report. According to the CDC nearly 25 percent of Americans over age 65 are obese and as we saw above over half of those people have at least two chronic health issues.

The Obesity ‘Epidemic’

So if one out of four Americans over age 65 is obese, with all the serious health consequences that entails AND half of them have at least two chronic health issues as well, that would suggest it wouldn’t take much to push them over the edge to meet their maker. All it would take is a bad flu bug, a bout of pneumonia, or a case of bronchitis combined with existing health problems for death to occur.

How many of these deaths could have been prevented if timely (and as we now know, effective) treatments had been administered like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine? Many doctors who were actually treating patients with these protocols reported dramatic improvement in 36-72 hours. But instead our medical “experts” literally outlawed these treatments and cancelled any doctor who spoke publicly about their effectiveness?

This Isn’t about health care

An additional 345,323 deaths in 2020 works out to about .65 percent of the 65 and over population in the US. Is that really a dramatic increase in deaths when proven effective treatments were purposely withheld from sick patients by medical professionals? And what about all the people who were refused routine medical care because of the hospitals being overwhelmed with patients?

But somehow these same hospitals that were allegedly “overwhelmed” found time for their staff to perform elaborately choreographed dance routines that were uploaded to Youtube and TikTok.

So far I’ve focused on physical ailments but this “pandemic” has been as much a psychological attack on the people as a physical one. Here’s why this matters: In the Holy Bible Proverbs 23:7 says, “As a man thinks in his heart so is he.” In this case the “heart” is the subconscious mind.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, five-to-seven percent of the adult population is susceptible to what is known as “somatic” disorder or psychosomatic disorder. They emphasize that somatic patients have weakened immune systems due to their condition making them more susceptible to illness. Somatic illness is defined as:

Somatic symptom disorder is a disorder in which individuals feel excessively distressed about their health and also have abnormal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in response to their symptoms. There are different subtypes of the disorder based on the patient’s complaint. The disorder causes a disruption in the patient’s normal functioning and quality of life.

According to the latest Census data there are approximately 250 million adults in the US So if we take the lower five percent estimate that would suggest there are over 12 million adults predisposed to somatic illness. How do you think these people have been affected by the constant barrage of fear porn being broadcast 24/7 by all types of media?

Mandatory face masks everywhere, social distancing signs plastered on the floor of every store, hand sanitizer everywhere, Plexiglas shields at the bank, restaurants closed down, churches closed, neighbors committing suicide and no access to needed routine medical care. And being told there is NO treatment available until a vaccine arrives. Then discovering the vaccine doesn’t work very well and may be worse than the virus! I suspect some somatic patients have literally died from constant, grinding fear morphing into abject terror.

What has been done by our elected officials and their medical “experts” is the greatest crime against the people that has ever been perpetrated by any criminal gang in the history of the world! And they are doing it under the “authority” of the state which they claim is legal.

It is not and we must resist with every fiber of our being right now or there will be no country worth having for our children and grandchildren.


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 Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

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 Sept. 17 meeting of the FDA advisory panel to recommend whether to approve a third dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, physicians pointed to data they said confirm the risks of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine don’t outweigh the benefits.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins said he would be “surprised” if COVID booster shots were not recommended for other Americans in the upcoming weeks even after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advisory committee on Sept. 17 overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to distribute booster shots of Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID vaccine to the general public.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) recommended the agency approve Pfizer’s application for boosters only for people 65 and older and certain high-risk populations.

In a conversation with “Fox News Sunday,” Collins dismissed the FDA’s decision as being subject to change upon further review of the science.

“I think the big news is that they did approve the initiation of boosters,” Collins said, for older and at-risk Americans. “Remember, they’re taking a snapshot of right now, we’re going to see what happens in the coming weeks.”

Collins said it would surprise him if it does not become clear over the next few weeks that the administration of boosters may need to be expanded. “Based on the data we’ve already seen both in the U.S. and in Israel, it’s clear that the waning effectiveness of those vaccines is a reality and we need to respond to it,” Collins said.

Collins said he was not sure whether boosters will be recommended for all — pointing to concerns of risks outweighing benefits for younger people — but he maintained that boosters for people under 65 will be approved.

Two FDA officials and a group of other leading scientists recently asserted that available evidence does not yet support encouraging COVID booster shots for all Americans.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to President Biden, said the FDA’s final decision on making booster shots available is expected later this week. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is separately  expected to weigh in on Pfizer’s booster request.

Fauci on Sunday told ABC’s “This Week” that Biden planned to have booster shots ready as soon as this week, pending FDA approval, because “we wanted to be ready.”

“These are the kind of things that when you make a decision, you don’t snap your finger and it gets rolled out the next day,” Fauci said. “When the FDA makes their final determination and very soon thereafter this coming week, you’re going to see the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that advises the CDC to perhaps even fine-tune that, so it can be implemented expeditiously.”

Fauci said FDA decisions on booster shots for people vaccinated with Moderna’s or Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines are a few weeks away.

‘COVID Vaccines harm more people than they save,’ physicians tell FDA

During Friday’s meeting, VRBPAC unexpectedly voted against approving boosters for the general population based on a lack of long-term data and stating the risks did not outweigh the benefits.

During the public comment session, numerous experts said data supporting Pfizer’s request for booster doses was inadequate, and several highlighted concerning patterns with data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS — requesting more attention be given to potential signals and reported adverse events.

Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist and virologist stated she “took it upon herself to become a VAERS analyst who organizes data into comprehensive figures to convey information to the public in both published work and video medium.”

Rose said “safety and efficacy are the cornerstones of the development and administration of biological products meant for human use.” She provided a data bridge showing the probability of an adverse event occurring and the severity of the resulting harm to health of individuals in the design population.

“This is a barsoft that shows the past 10 years of VAERS data plotted against the total number of adverse event reports for all vaccines for the years 2011 to 2020 and for COVID associated products — only for 2021,” Rose said.

“The left barsoft represents all adverse event reports and the right barsoft represents all death adverse event reports,” Rose said. “There’s an over 1000% increase in the total number of adverse events for 2021, and we are not done with 2021. This is highly anomalous on both fronts.”

Rose said:

“The onus is on the public health officials at the FDA, the CDC and policymakers to answer to these anomalies and acknowledge the clear risk signals emerging from VAERS data and to confront the issue of COVID injectable products use/risk. In my opinion [the risks] outweigh any potential benefit associated with these products, especially for children.”

Rose also pointed out that as of Aug. 27, there were 1,500 adverse reactions occurring per million fully injected people, and 1 in 660 individuals are “succumbing to and reporting immunological adverse events associated with the COVID products.” Rose noted adverse events are under-reported and the under-reporting factor was not considered in her data.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, revealed during his presentation to the FDA’s safety panel that no clinical evidence exists to disprove claims that the COVID vaccines are harming more people than they save.

Fraiman said he was there to ask for help to reduce vaccine hesitancy, however, in order to do this, large clinical trials that demonstrate vaccines reduce hospitalizations without finding evidence of serious harm are needed.

“I know many think the vaccine-hesitant are dumb or just misinformed, that’s not at all what I’ve seen,” Fraiman said. “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 COVID risks than the vaccinated.”

Fraiman said that without booster trials that are large enough to find a risk reduction in hospitalizations, “we, the medical establishment, cannot call out anti-COVID vaccine activists who publicly claim the vaccine harms 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, executive director of the COVID-19 early treatment fund, said he was going to focus on the elephant in the room that “nobody wants to talk about” — that COVID vaccines kill more people than they save.

He said:

“We were led to believe that vaccines are perfectly safe, but this is simply not true. For example, there were four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6-month trial report. That wasn’t bad luck, the VAERS shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine. In all, 20 people died who got the drug — 14 died who got the placebo.”

“If the net all cause mortality from the vaccines is negative, then vaccines, boosters and negatives are all nonsensical,” Kirsch said. “Even if the vaccines had 100% protection, it still means we kill two people to save one life.”

Kirsch said four experts did analyses using completely different non-U.S. data sources, and all of them came up with approximately the same number of excess vaccine-related deaths — about 411 deaths per million doses. “That translates into 150,000 people who have died [from COVID vaccines],” he explained.

Kirsch ended his presentation by discussing Maddie de Garay’s case. De Garay participated in Pfizer’s clinical trial when she was 12 years old and became paralyzed following her first COVID vaccine dose. Kirsch asked the panel why Pfizer didn’t report her injury in their results and wanted to know “why this fraud was not investigated.”

Kim Witczak, FDA consumer representative and founder of Woody Matters, a drug safety organization, said, “While boosters may be good for business mRNA vaccines were never designed to stop transmission or eradicate the virus.”

Witczak called out the government for not recognizing natural immunity for vaccine mandates and for the potential of “leaky vaccines” to produce variants.

Dr. Peter Doshi, professor at the University of Maryland and senior editor of The BMJ, asked the committee what problem a third dose is intended to solve. “If this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, why would a fully vaccinated person need a third dose?” he asked.

Doshi said a third dose, fourth dose or fifth dose might nudge up antibodies, but what clinical difference does this make? It is vital to assess whether there’s a higher risk of harm associated with a third dose and to date, “we are still in the dark,” he said.

Doshi ended with an important question:

“Last week, three medical licensing boards said they could revoke doctors’ medical licenses for providing COVID vaccine misinformation. I’m worried about the chilling effects here. There are clearly many remaining unknowns and science is all about proving unknowns.

“But in the present supercharged climate — and I’ll point out that many members on this committee are certified by these boards — what is the FDA doing so that members can speak freely without fear of reprisal?”

FDA could choose to ignore its safety panel

As STAT reported, the FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of its advisory panel, though it generally does. But if the agency doesn’t, it will raise significant questions of political interference and will pit agency scientists against political officials who signed off on the booster plan.

In an unusual move last month, Biden and top health officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock and CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, publicly announced a booster shot program would begin the week of Sept. 20, well before the FDA and CDC examined the evidence.

Since then, numerous scientists have expressed skepticism over the need for COVID boosters, including two FDA officials who recently resigned over the issue.

On Thursday, FDA scientists had expressed skepticism about the need for Pfizer COVID vaccine booster shots in a 23-page report released Sept. 15 that called into question the limited data Pfizer had supporting its application for boosters.


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

How Did the Perpetrators Do 9/11?

September 21st, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

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 has motivated some critics of the standard narrative to explore alternative explanations for what took place on that fatal day. To be sure, there has been considerable focus through the years on exactly what happened, analyzing the technical aspects of what made the twin towers and nearby Building 7, which is where the CIA Station was located, fall while also speculating over what actually occurred at the Pentagon and at Shanksville Pennsylvania.

The narrative under attack basically derives from the 585 page 9/11 Commission Report and from both media coverage and government press releases near the time of the event and ever since. The basic government approved narrative goes like this: Nineteen Arab hijackers, mostly Saudi nationals, acting under orders of Osama bin Laden, head of the terrorist group al-Qaeda, used box cutters and other implements to seize control of four commercial airliners. Two of them were flown into the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center, which collapsed from the damage, a third plane struck the Pentagon and a fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers attempted to regain control from the hijackers. There was some debris from planes at the sites, but the bodies of passengers, crew and hijackers were largely consumed beyond recognition by the flames and intense heat. DNA samples collected at the various sites have, since that time, reportedly identified some of the dead. Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, caught fire from the falling debris from the nearby World Trade Center towers and the flames spread to such an extent that it had to be demolished to prevent endangering other adjacent buildings.

In support of the alternative theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition type explosions is the lack of any serious forensic analysis of the fragments of masonry and steel. The debris was picked up hurriedly and dumped at sea and abroad where it could not be subjected to chemical examination. That fact alone smacks of conspiracy.

Nearly 3,000 US citizens and residents died in the multiple attacks, remembrance of which became the driving force behind a Global War On Terror (GWOT) launched by the George W. Bush Administration. Recently released FBI documents have added somewhat to the standard 9/11 tale, conceding that the Saudi government and some wealthy individuals, possibly including the royal family, helped the hijackers both directly and indirectly, but there is no evidence to suggest that there was any direct involvement by Riyadh in the conspiracy, if that is what it was. Bear in mind that “no evidence” does not mean “not guilty” and there are still a number of Saudi related documents that are classified.

The first question that should be asked relating to “whodunit?” is “Who benefits?” The Saudis would have had no motive to carry out the attack in any event as the Kingdom was very much dependent on American support to survive in its current autocratic form. Unless al-Qaeda had some desire to harm or even bring down the Saudi state, for which there is some evidence, the benefit to the group and its leadership is difficult to discern unless 9/11 is regarded as little more than a gratuitous act of violence or punishment of Washington for its misdeeds in the Middle East. Bin Laden was reportedly in a Pakistani Army hospital in Rawalpindi having dialysis on the day before the attacks and may still have been under medical care, so the timing is curious if he was indeed one of the masterminds. Also, in his first recorded comment on 9/11, bin Laden’s immediate response was that he didn’t have anything to do with it.

That leaves two prime beneficiaries of 9/11, the state of Israel and a possible secret cabal in the US government made up mostly of neoconservatives that may have been tied to the Israelis and which wanted to use the American military might to remake the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly admitted that Israel had much to gain from the US joining his country’s war against Muslim terrorism, saying that

“It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [and] 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, in Netanyahu’s view, the attack was conveniently attributable to Israel’s enemies.

There is plenty of evidence that supports possible Israeli or neocon involvement so the next question becomes “What did they do and how did they do it?” In a recent groundbreaking article former CIA Senior Analysts and Presidential Briefer Ray McGovern explains how there was plenty of warning in US government intelligence and security circles of what was coming, but somehow people at the top seemed to block any action that might have mitigated or even prevented the attack. Even high-level dire warnings from friendly intelligence services in France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Arab countries were ignored. The persistence in avoiding any follow-up or preventive measures is far beyond the point where it could have been a coincidence and one notes the presence of Vice President Dick Cheney in the chain of command at the top of the bureaucracy who was known to have favored an interventionist defense policy and may have contrived to bring it about. Cheney, of course, had close ties to the neocons in the Pentagon and on the National Security Council Staff.

Ray notes that none of the identified Administration officials who were guilty of malfeasance over 9/11 were disciplined or fired. On the contrary, many were promoted with Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz as a prime example of someone who wound up as head of the World Bank. The failure to punish is a sure sign of a cover-up. I would add to that the fact that Israel was not even investigated during the preparation of the 9/11 Report in spite of the fact that it had a massive spy operation targeting Arabs underway in the US. Also, known Israeli intelligence agents “working” for a bogus New Jersey trucking company that may have been involved in deliveries of explosives and detonators to the WTC buildings on weekends and late at night were seen dancing and celebrating as the buildings burned behind them.

As for the WTC buildings themselves, they had conveniently been privatized by the owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which may have provided after hours and weekend access to them. The decision to privatize was reportedly due to recommendations made by commissions headed by billionaire Ronald Lauder, who was also President of the World Jewish Congress. This resulted in Larry Silverstein obtaining a 99-year lease on the Twin Towers in July 2001. Silverstein, several of his children and some of his senior managers were supposed to be in the buildings on the morning of 9/11, but for various reasons did not show up. Silverstein later benefited to the tune of $4.55 billion from an insurance policy on the buildings, though he had sought $7.1 billion, claiming that the policy covered “per incident” and there had been two plane strikes.

The case for Israeli active intervention on a political level is also extremely strong, outlined in the 1982 Yinon Plan and in the “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, which was prepared by a group of American neocons in 1992 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Neocons in their foundational document the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) expressed the desire that the United States should experience a “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” that would motivate the country to attain “full spectrum global dominance” by means of military force. And to implement their schemes, Israeli diplomats, the Israel Lobbyists, and neoconservative largely political appointees were never in short supply on Capitol Hill. Many of the American Jews involved in the neocon network wound up in the Pentagon working for Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans. Others worked for Cheney or were on the National Security Council, all well placed to influence a crime and cover-up on a massive scale.

The final question “How did they do it?” results in a speculative response, but I would argue that if the Arab hijackers really existed, both Israel, which clearly would have known about what was coming, and the cabal in Washington, just “let it happen,” making it a version of a false flag attack. If they had prior knowledge that the presumed Saudi hijackers, most of whom they likely knew by name, would be taking over the airliners and crashing them into high value targets to include the WTC and government buildings in Washington, it served their purpose to not interfere and let them do it. And Israel had plenty of “friends” in the media and government to execute the cover-up. America would be at war forever in the Middle East and Benjamin Netanyahu would be smiling as his country’s enemies would be held to blame and punished severely.

My speculation might not be accurate in every detail, but I would bet it is a lot closer to reality than what has been peddled in the United States over the past twenty years.


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 Unz Review.

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.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

Joe Biden: Nuclear Sorcerer Apprentice

September 21st, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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.



President Biden announced the birth of AUKUS, a strategic-military partnership between the United States, Great Britain and Australia, with “the imperative of ensuring long-term peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific”, the region that in Washington’s geopolitics extends from the West coast of the United States to the coast of India. The purpose of this”strategic mission” is “to take on the threats of the 21st Century just as we did in the 20th Century: together”. It is a clear reference to China and Russia.

To “defend against rapidly evolving threats,” the AUKUS launched a “key project”: the United States and Britain will help Australia acquire “nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarines.”

The first reaction to the announcement of the AUKUS project was that of France: it thus lost a 90 billion dollars contract, stipulated with Australia, for the supply of 12 Barracuda attack submarines with conventional propulsion. Paris, complaining of being stabbed in the back, has withdrawn its Ambassadors from the USA and Australia. The political-media attention has been focused on the dispute between Paris and Washington, leaving in shadow the implications of the AUKUS project.

First of all, it is not credible that the United States and Great Britain provided Australia with the most advanced technologies to build at least 8 nuclear submarines of the latest generation with a unit cost of about 10 billion dollars to equip them only with conventional (non-nuclear) weapons. It is as if they were to provide Australia with aircraft carriers unable to carry aircraft.  In reality, the submarines will have launch tubes suitable for both non-nuclear and nuclear missiles. Prime Minister Morrison has already announced that Australia will rapidly acquire, through the U.S. “long-range strike capabilities” with Tomahawk and hypersonic missiles that can be armed with both conventional and nuclear warheads.

Certainly, Australian submarines will also be able to launch US Trident D5 ballistic missiles which US and British submarines are armed with. The Trident D5 has a range of 12,000 km and can carry up to 14 independent thermonuclear warheads: 100 kt W76 or 475 kt W88. The Columbia nuclear attack submarine, whose construction began in 2019, has 16 launch tubes for Trident D5s, so it has the capacity to launch over 200 nuclear warheads capable of destroying as many targets (bases, ports, cities and others). 

On this background, it is clear that Washington  cut off Paris from  the submarines supply to Australia not simply for economic purposes (favouring its own war industries), but for strategic purposes: to move on to a new phase of military escalation against China and Russia in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining absolute command of the operation. After cancelling the supply of French submarines with conventional propulsion, obsolete for this strategy, Washington has started what Ican-Australia denounced as “the increased nuclearization of Australia’s military capability“.

The Australian nuclear submarines, once operational, will actually be placed in the US chain of command, which will decide their employment. These submarines – no one will be able to control their real armament – approaching in depth and silently to the coasts of China and also  Russia, could strike in a few minutes the main targets in these countries with a destructive capacity equal to more than 20 thousand Hiroshima bombs.

It is easily predictable what the first consequence will be. China, which according to Sipri possesses 350 nuclear warheads compared to the US 5.550, will accelerate the quantitative and qualitative development of its nuclear forces. The economic and technological potential that it possesses, allows it to equip the country with nuclear forces comparable to those of the US and Russia. The merit goes to the apprentice sorcerer Biden who, while launching the “key project” of nuclear submarines to Australia, exalts “the longstanding leadership of the United States in global non-proliferation“.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.



A doctor, who is also the owner of a diagnostic lab has found a 20 times increase in cancers since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Explaining his findings he said that the vaccines seem to be causing serious autoimmune issues, in a way he described as a “reverse HIV” response.

On March 18, Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist and owner and operator of a diagnostics lab, reported to the public in a video produced by Idaho state government’s  “Capitol Clarity” project,  that he is seeing a massive ‘uptick’ in various autoimmune diseases and cancers in patients who have been vaccinated.

“Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis,” reported Dr. Cole in the video clip shared on Twitter.

“I’m not exaggerating at all because I look at my numbers year over year, I’m like ‘Gosh, I’ve never seen this many endometrial cancers before’,” he continued.

Explaining his findings at the March 18 event, Cole told Idahoans that the vaccines seem to be causing serious autoimmune issues, in a way he described as a “reverse HIV” response.

Cole explained that two types of cells are required for adequate immune system function: “Helper T-cells,” also called “CD4 cells,” and “killer T-cells,” often known as “CD8 cells.”

According to Cole, in patients with HIV, there is a massive suppression of “helper T-cells” which cause immune system functions to plummet, and leave the patient susceptible to a variety of illnesses.

Similarly, Cole describes, “post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells,”

“And what do CD8 cells do? They keep all other viruses in check,” he continued.

Much like HIV causes immune system disruption by suppressing CD4 “helper” cells, the same thing happens when CD8 “killer” cells are suppressed. In Dr. Cole’s expert view, this is what seems to be the case with the COVID-19 jabs.

Cole goes on to state that as a result of this vaccine-induced “killer T-cell” suppression, he is seeing an “uptick” of not only endometrial cancer, but also melanomas, as well as herpes, shingles, mono, and a “huge uptick” in HPV when “looking at the cervical biopsies of women.”

This is not the first time the COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to serious issues regarding women’s health.

According to Intermountain Healthcare doctors women who were recently vaccinated for COVID-19 may show symptoms of Breast Cancer as a side-effect of the vaccine.

As per reports women are experiencing irregular menstruation after getting vaccinated against COVID with more heavier and painful periods.

Six months after the coronavirus vaccines were widely distributed in the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has called for a $1.67 million study on how the COVID-19 vaccines affect women’s menstrual cycles.

According to March data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), there were 34 cases reported where pregnant women suffered from spontaneous miscarriages or stillbirths post COVID-19 vaccination.

Recently, according to VAERS data a breastfeeding baby died of blood clots and inflamed arteries weeks after his mother was given the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

Meanwhile, researcher at the University of Miami have recommended men to have a fertility evaluation before receiving the COVID vaccine and to consider to freeze their sperm before vaccination in order to protect their fertility.

Dr. Cole states in his video that, not only are melanomas showing up more frequently, like endometrial cancers, the melanomas are also developing more rapidly, and are more severe in younger people, than he has ever previously witnessed.

“Most concerning of all, there is a pattern of these types of immune cells in the body keeping cancer in check,” stated the doctor.

“I’m seeing invasive melanomas in younger patients; normally we catch those early, and they are thin melanomas, [but] I’m seeing thick melanomas skyrocketing in the last month or two,” he added.

Cole came into prominence in January of 2021 when the Idaho government put in place an effort called “Capitol Clarity,” with the stated goal of keeping Idahoans informed about the facts surrounding COVID-19.

Capitol Clarity has since hosted Dr. Ryan Cole multiple times to provide information to the public about vaccine safety and COVID-19 measures more broadly.

The videos of Dr. Cole at these events, which were originally posted on YouTube, have since been deleted by the Google owned video platform in a continual effort of censorship by Big Tech.


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 GGI

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.



Something is terribly, terribly wrong. I know you can sense it. I know there is a part of you that knows something isn’t right. You know you are being deceived but you cannot bring yourself to admit it. So instead, you fight the enemies presented to you, Trump/Pelosi, Democrats/Republicans, and you take up sides in predictable ways.

But that is a sideshow. It is a distraction. The screens are showing us a perception that is not real.

If you are old enough to remember 9/11, you remember the nonstop media coverage that provided us with the culprits early on and never let up telling us who was responsible. Images of airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers again and again and again surrounded by sideshow stories about politicians saying stupid things and other politicians saying what an outrage the other politicians were. Yet all the politicians agreed who it was and what we needed to do. We got the message. We were helpless. We were under attack by these jihadist terrorists and only two things could save us: one, massive military expenditures and endless wars abroad, and two, giving up our constitutional rights at home for the promise of security.

9/11 was a movie. We were directed to look at the airplanes, when in fact, the buildings were blown to kingdom come and airplanes had nothing to do with it. The whole thing was fake. Real people died of course. Those people were not “extras.” We were all in this movie. But it was a movie.

Just this past week the University of Alaska-Fairbanks published its final report showing that the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) lied and continues to lie about the demolition of World Trade Center Building Seven.

Independent researchers have shown for years the 9/11 movie to be so filled with holes that it cannot stand up to critical scrutiny. The 9/11 movie-makers answered that of course. The researchers are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” and everyone laughs with derision as if on cue. I am grateful for these researchers. Their work will matter to future generations who will look back at us in disbelief that our generation could have been so hypnotized. Their work also matters to me, in the present, because it is real. What’s real matters.

9/11: The Movie, is finishing its run. The toll of death and destruction has been immense.

Now the sequel. COVID was released in October 2019 with the first scenes taking place in China. The COVID movie is about a virus that has infected the human population because of a wild bat. Seriously.

This virus has travelled the globe and is so terrifying that governments have shut down everything.

In the United States (and Western nations) whose people are the intended audience for this movie, we are now on what I describe as near lockdown.

Schools are shut down. Businesses have shut down. Even places of worship are closed. You cannot be within six feet of another human. We humans are in the way. We are good for nothing except to be shut up and isolated in our homes. Normally, humans help each other through crises. Not during COVID. In this movie, we are only saved by following orders to isolate (even if you are not sick) and reporting on those who we think are not following orders.

COVID: The Movie, broadcasts 24/7 on all screens large and small.

We were told that the culprit is a natural virus and that is not to be questioned.

Those who do question are “conspiracy theorists” (cue derision, hostility, disgust).

This virus has mysterious properties in that people can be contagious for weeks without any symptoms.

When symptoms do develop they are the same as a cold or flu. Except, it is really bad for some. It is so dangerous that no human can be in contact with each other or the virus will spread. Each day COVID: The Movie provides body counts and many, many images of people in hazmat suits and lab coats. Who is dying and of what exactly? How do we know that these deaths have anything to do with a virus, or with our response to it, or with our behavior? We don’t. We don’t know. We are only told.

COVID: The Movie, is the only movie playing. While it plays on all screens, all the time, things are happening in the real world.

  • Laws are being passed.
  • Wall Street has been given trillions of dollars.
  • 5G is being constructed.
  • Surveillance gadgets are being used.
  • We are being watched. Every move.
  • This is the coolest experiment you can imagine. Shut people up in their homes.
  • Fill them with fear. Screw them over. That is COVID: The Movie.

COVID: The Movie has nothing to do with a virus any more than 9/11: The Movie had anything to do with hijackers.

“Look here! Virus! Virus! Fear! Fear! Meanwhile we destroy everything you hold dear over here and substitute it with a fake existence in front of your television and smart phone.”

The same people whose same media brought you 9/11 are bringing you COVID.

Let’s be clear about what I am saying and what I am not saying. I am not saying there may not be massive amount of death. There may be. Regardless of what is being called COVID-19, there are plenty of biological and chemical agents all over the world, ready to be released whenever these movie-makers want to release them. They can release them whenever and wherever they want. They can target different populations. These concoctions have been released throughout history. The US government has done it to its own citizens. The technology gets better and better, or should I say, more and more sinister.

The point of COVID: The Movie is to engineer enough death and suffering or the perception and threat of death and suffering as necessary to get through the needed agenda items. One of the agenda items is to see how well the movie-makers can succeed at controlling us. I think they must be happy so far with the results. They are taking notes for next time.

COVID is not about a virus. 9/11 was not about Al Qaeda terrorists.

This is about control. You are being controlled. This is what I am saying.

And you really kind of know it, don’t you? You know something isn’t right. I am telling you to go with that feeling. Explore it and research this. We don’t know what is really going on. Nothing can be trusted. Certainly, not anything you get from the screens. But there are people, who are like you, who have the same feeling that this isn’t right. They are acting on that feeling. Some have been exploring what is behind the movies and have been doing so for a long time. Others are just beginning to awaken. I tell you this not to convince you of anything, but to assure you that if you feel that something is terribly, terribly wrong about what we are being told, you are not alone. Know that and be empowered.


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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID: The Movie, the Sequel to 9/11. “Virus, Virus, Fear, Fear …”
  • Tags: , ,

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.



As a retired doctor, parent and grandparent, I have grave concerns over the mandating of vaccinations, isolation strategies and unnecessary masking currently being imposed and authorized by the Ontario government on children.

It makes no sense to force these measures on children, especially not the mRNA vaccines against covid. These injections do not stop the transmission of the virus or its new variants, yet you are rolling out “vaccination mandates” without sober second thought regarding potential harms.

Your own Government of Ontario website confirms the fact that children are the demographic least likely to contract, transmit, or die from this illness.

According to the Public Health Ontario Website, Enhanced Epidemiological Summary, (from Jan 15, 2020, to June 30, 2021)[1]

  • “The proportion of severe outcomes, including hospitalizations, ICU admission, deaths and complications are much lower among cases in children compared to adults.”
  • “Two deaths have been reported in children compared to 9,255 deaths reported among adults”

If, in fact, they do get covid, children and young adults have mild symptoms, rarely require hospitalization, recover quickly, and the result is natural immunity. Indeed, the fact of natural immunity is one that public health authorities have ignored, creating a catastrophic distrust of public health, government – and even our entire healthcare system.

Severe adverse reactions from the Covid vaccine injections, even deaths, are occurring in children and young adults, especially boys and young men. According to the CDC Website: [2] “Since April 2021, increased cases of myocartitis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), particularly in adolescents and young adults.” Up to Aug. 28, 2021, Ontario has had 331 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis after receipt of an mRNA vaccine.

A report prepared by Dr. Byram W. Bridle, PhD Associate Professor of Viral Immunology at the University of Guelph, concluded:

“It is not appropriate to use an ‘experimental’ vaccine in a population group unless the benefit of vaccination exceeds the risk of vaccination in that population group. With risk of severe COVID-19 in children, adolescents, and young adults of child-bearing age already so low, the benefit of vaccinating these population groups with a vaccine for which neither the long-term safety nor efficacy is known cannot be concluded to exceed the risk.”

What is more, since the rollout of these injections, natural immunity is not being acknowledged. Expert consensus agrees that natural immunity outweighs medical intervention. Dr. Michael Yeadon[3], a former Pfizer vice president, states:

“Some are advocating the vaccination of people who have recovered from COVID-19. Natural immunization being the ultimate form of vaccination, we see absolutely no scientific nor medical justification for such a procedure.”[4]

Are our government and public health officials knowingly inflicting emotional and bodily harm on children and families? I hope the policies you are implementing are created out of ignorance and not malice. Your mandates violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Moreover, it is incomprehensible to me that your government would unilaterally override the rights of parents to know what is best for their children. Parents are worried about your threats to interfere with their right to make medical decisions for their own children.

The Ontario government and public health authorities have legal obligations regarding informed consent regarding all medical interventions. Never before have children and young students been pushed into taking a potentially harmful medication with no long-term safety data for purpose of protecting other people. In medicine such a practice has always been unethical, as is coercion to submit to any treatment.

These are important matters to which you have not given enough thought – the consequences may well be grave.


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.

John Cunnington, MD, Retired Associate Professor of Medicine and Assistant Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University


[1] https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/2020/05/covid-19-epi-infection-children.pdf?la=en

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html

[3] (DR MICHAEL YEADON – Scientific Advisory Board member, PANDA. Expert in Allergy & Respiratory (A&R) Therapeutic; PhD in Biochemistry and Toxicology; Former Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer A&R unit.  CEO, & Founder of Ziarco; 25 years’ experience in Drug Discovery; 40 Full Papers; 63 Abstracts; 2 Books; 6 Patents)

[4] https://www..org/how-broad-is-covid- pandata immunity/

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.



Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor and founder of the “Alliance for Human Research Protection”, said in an interview that the whole attraction of the COVID 19 vaccine empire is the expected trillion-dollar market. Profiteers are Big Pharma and all the politicians, scientists, hospitals, doctors, pharmacies and corporate media corrupted by and cooperating with this financial power. Parallels to the war and drug empires or to the organ trade are obvious. It is always about good business.

More and more fellow citizens will realise as a result of this immoderate greed for power and money of the ruling psychopaths why the servile governments want to force this COVID 19 non-vaccine or “killer vaccine” on more than 7 billion people and increasingly younger children with all means at their disposal, contrary to the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

For ex-Pfizer VP Dr Michael Yeadon, spraying our children is murder. Reducing the world’s population and establishing a totalitarian system are part of the blood trail of this good business.

At some point, everyone has to make a choice, says Vera Sharav:

“There are crossroads in life where you have to make choices, and if you don’t, someone making the decision for you will not make it in your best interest.” (1)

Wherever we look, it’s all about the profit, the good business

Whether in our social order or in our lives, everywhere is about profit. Thus all states spend enormous sums on armaments. Never have so many weapons been forged as today. There is then no money left for other purposes such as schools, education or cultural concerns. What do the states, politicians, diplomats want with the armaments? To dominate and exploit other peoples on the other side of the border, that’s good business. And the corporate media have always been a “tool of the war ministry” (Bertha von Suttner).

Drug trafficking is also good business. An enormous number of young people – and adults too, as the example of the USA shows – perish from drug abuse. They literally go to their deaths when they get involved with drugs. They then have difficulty giving up the abuse. But why are our children involved with drugs? How do they get into it? If it wasn’t a good business to make a lot of money from, we wouldn’t have any worries. The drug user would not get the substance, the market would be empty.

Other examples could be added, such as the profitable organ trade or the multi-billion dollar business with computer games that generate gambling addiction. The capitalist system makes people corrupt involuntarily.

Vera Sharav: “That’s the whole appeal of this COVID 19 vaccine: trillions are at stake.”

In an interview titled “Nazism, COVID-19 and the Destruction of Modern Medicine”, Vera Sharav calls on parents to organise. Literally, she states:

“They need to organise. It doesn’t take the entire population to rise up. It is enough if a certain number do. There is more awareness. There is more fighting capacity.” (2)

Then she concludes:

“Vaccines are an empire, and now they really want to introduce a vaccine worldwide. Do you know what that market is? More than 7 billion people for one vaccine. Can you even count the profits, no matter what they charge? That’s exactly what they’re aiming for. That’s the whole appeal of this COVID 19 vaccine. It’s that market. Bill Gates recently said on camera that he has invested in 7 factories for the vaccine that has not yet been developed. And he was asked if that wasn’t a big waste of money. And he said, ‘What’s a few billion dollars when we’re talking trillions.’ Yes, that’s what it’s about. It’s about trillions.” (3)

EX-Pfizer VP Yeadon: “COVID spraying our children is murder”

The opening credits of the 18 September 2021 video with the ex-Pfizer boss state:

“The whole force of the state is engaged in the ‘murder’ of our children. Dr Michael Yeadon indicts the planned murder of children and the extermination of billions as ex-Pfizer chief. Even the state virologist Alexander Kekulé, complicit in the murder, cannot help but admit that children are not affected at all by this invented virus. At best, 1 child in 100,000 falls ill. And there is no contagion from children. ‘Long-Covid’ is another invention of the system to justify spraying healthy children and adults. Kill, kill, kill.” (4)


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. Rudolf Hänsel is a qualified psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


(1) https://krisenfrei.com/nazismus-covid-19-und-die-zerstoerung-der-modernen-medizin/

(2) op. cit.

(3) op. cit.

(4) https://www.bitchute.com/video/Afn4pfDtmJY4/

Featured image is from D4CE

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Worldwide Blood Trail of “Good Business”: The Trillion Dollar COVID-19 “Vaccine” Market
  • Tags: ,

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 Sept. 17, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed an amended motion to stay as a follow up to its lawsuit, filed Aug. 31, against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for simultaneously approving and authorizing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in a classic “bait and switch.”

The FDA’s action created mass confusion, disorder and deception regarding the differences between the two Pfizer vaccines.

The FDA approval purportedly allowed the U.S. Military, the Biden administration and other U.S. companies to exhort people to take “licensed” vaccines when in fact the vaccines routinely available and being administered in the U.S. continue to be the Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines.

“The FDA’s deceitful scheme dupes unsuspecting military members as well as much of America into believing they are receiving a vaccine with certain legal protections that are not available to EUA vaccines,” said Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel.

Holland added:

“The FDA’s illegal approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has helped the U.S. Department of Defense justify strict COVID-19 vaccine mandates that have resulted in U.S. military members being threatened with harsh consequences for refusing to receive the EUA-Pfizer vaccine.”

Holland said that in the memorandum filed Sept. 18, to accompany the amended motion to stay,

“Plaintiffs detail with striking clarity the impact the FDA’s scheme has on our men and women in uniform. This would not have existed without the FDA’s unlawful actions.”

The 16 exhibits to the memorandum include declarations from 14 military service members, who are also members of CHD. According to Holland, the declarations are illustrative of the coercion men and women of different branches of the service face.

“These 14 men and women, ranging in rank from enlisted men and women to senior officers, put their careers at risk to submit their declarations,” Holland said.

The declarations were selected from more than 100 submissions CHD received over a two-day period. The declarations detail each service member’s documented concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of unlicensed vaccines.

“Their careers should not be ended simply because they exercise their rights under federal law,” said Ray Flores, one of the attorneys in the lawsuit. “Even though these service members have a lawful right to refuse the available vaccines, which are overwhelmingly EUA, they risk irreparable harm to their careers, education, property and civil liberties, including dishonorable discharge, demotion, an end to their VA benefits, pensions and medical insurance. As many are sole breadwinners, their families also suffer,” Flores said.

The servicemen and women who sought religious, medical and serological exemptions report their commanders have already told them all exemptions will be denied.

An existing military regulation includes the following as basis for natural, acquired immunity exemptions: “Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances.” [AR 40-562 Ch. 2-6a. (1)(b).]

More than half of the declarations demonstrate the service member has already acquired natural immunity to COVID. As with the rest of the population facing mandates, natural immunity is not being taken into account.

“Even though the Department of Defense knows it is against the law to force experimental vaccines on our men and women in uniform, it mercilessly tricks, discriminates and coerces them into participating in an unlawful experiment,” Flores said.

He added:

“In Doe # 1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119, 135 (2003), Judge Sullivan concluded, ‘The women and men of our armed forces put their lives on the line every day to preserve and safeguard the freedoms that all Americans cherish and enjoy. Absent an informed consent or presidential waiver, the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.’ This time, the FDA’s abject lawlessness paved the way for the U.S. military to treat our heroes in uniform as guinea pigs for experimental drugs and imposed career-ending punishment on any service members who dare to stand up for their rights.”


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 14 Military Members Detail Toll Vaccine Mandates Are Taking on Service Members in Amended Motion to CHD Lawsuit Against FDA
  • Tags: , , ,

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 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)?


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 3rd 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 23rd 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 8th (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.


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


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.)


[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)


[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


[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.

The Taliban in Afghanistan

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.

A group of people standing in a room Description automatically generated with low confidence

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.

Socialist Party (Netherlands) - Wikipedia

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.” 


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.


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.




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.


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”:

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 (ODsample/ODcut-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 ODcut-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 (ODcut-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 (ODsample/ODcut-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)?


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).


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.


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

Ruckus over AUKUS Isn’t an Edifying Sight

September 21st, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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)

‘Justice for J6 Rally’: A Set-Up or a Psy-Op?

September 21st, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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)

Party Leaders All Promote Racist, Mythical Foreign Policy

September 21st, 2021 by Yves Engler

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 20th 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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Has Justin Trudeau Been Duly Vaccinated? Registered Nurse Expresses Doubt on Authenticity of Trudeau’s Vaccine Jab

Chile, September 11, 1973: The Ingredients of a Military Coup

September 21st, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Almost half a century ago on September 11, 1973, the Chilean military led by General Augusto Pinochet, crushed the democratically elected Unidad Popular government of Salvador Allende.

The objective was to replace a progressive, democratically elected government by a brutal military dictatorship.

The military coup was supported by the CIA. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a direct role in the military plot.1

In the weeks leading up the coup, US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and members of the CIA held meetings with Chile’s top military brass together with the leaders of the National Party and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad.  While the undercover role of the Nixon administration is amply documented,  what is rarely mentioned in media reports is the fact that the military coup was also supported by a sector of the Christian Democratic Party.

Patricio Aylwin, who was elected Chile’s president in 1989,  became head of the DC party in the months leading up to the September 1973 military coup (March through September 1973). Aylwin was largely instrumental in the break down of the “Dialogue” between the Unidad Popular government and the Christian Democrats. His predecessor Renan Fuentealba, who represented the moderate wing of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), was firmly against military intervention. Fuentealba favored a dialogue with Allende (la salida democratica). He was displaced from the leadership of the Party in May 1973 in favor of Patricio Aylwin.

The DC Party was split down the middle, between those who favored “the salida democratica”, and the dominant Aylwin-Frei faction, which favored “a military solution”. 2 

On 23 August, the Chilean Camera de Diputados drafted a motion,  to the effect that the Allende government “sought to impose a totalitarian regime”. Patricio Aylwin was a member of the drafting team of this motion. Patricio Aylwin believed that a temporary military dictatorship was “the lesser of two evils.”3

This motion was adopted almost unanimously by the opposition parties, including the DC, the Partido Nacional and the PIR ( Radical Left).

The leadership of the Christian Democratic Party including former Chilean president Eduardo Frei, had given a green light to the Military. Unquestionably, US intelligence must have played an undercover role in the change of leadership in the PDC.

And continuity in the “Chilean Model” heralded as an “economic success story” was ensured when, 16 years later, Patricio Aylwin was elected president of Chile in the so-called transition to democracy in 1989.

At the time of the September 11 coup, I was Visiting Professor of Economics at the Catholic University of Chile. In the hours following the bombing of the Presidential Palace of La Moneda, the new military rulers imposed a 72-hour curfew.

When the university reopened several days later, I started patching together the history of the coup from written notes. I had lived through the tragic events of September 11, 1973 as well as the failed June 29, 1973 coup. Several of my students at the Universidad Catolica had been arrested by the military Junta.

In the days following the military takeover,  I started going through piles of documents and newspaper clippings, which I had collected on a daily basis since my arrival in Chile in early 1973. A large part of this material, however, was lost and destroyed by my research assistant, fearing political reprisals in the days following the coup.

This unpublished article was written 48 years ago. It was drafted on an old typewriter in the weeks following September 11, 1973.

This original draft article plus two carbon copies were circulated among a few close friends and colleagues at the Catholic University. It was never published. For 30 years it lay in a box of documents at the bottom of a filing cabinet.

I have transcribed the text from the yellowed carbon copy draft [in 2003]. Apart from minor editing, I have made no changes to the original article.

The history of this period has since then been amply documented including the role of the Nixon administration and of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the plot to assassinate Allende and install a military regime.

Chicago Economics: Neoliberal Dress Rehearsal of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)

The main objective of the US-supported military coup in Chile was ultimately to  impose the neoliberal economic agenda.  The latter, in the case of Chile, was not imposed by external creditors under the guidance of IMF. “Regime change” was enforced  through a covert military intelligence operation, which laid the groundwork for the military coup. Sweeping macro-economic reforms (including privatization, price liberalization and the freeze of wages) were implemented in early October 1973.

Barely a few weeks after the military takeover, the military Junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet ordered a hike in the price of bread from 11 to 40 escudos, a hefty overnight increase of 264%. This “economic shock treatment” had been designed by a group of economists called the “Chicago Boys.”

While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure “economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures.” From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty; in less than a year the price of bread in Chile increased thirty-six fold (3700%). Eighty-five percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line.

I completed my work on the “unpublished paper’ entitled “The Ingredients of a Military Coup” (see text below) in late September.  In October and November, following the dramatic hikes in the price of food,  I drafted in Spanish an initial “technical” assessment of the Junta’s deadly macro-economic reforms entitled La Medición del Ingreso Minimo de Subsistencia y la Politica de Ingresos para 1974′ Fearing censorship, I limited my analysis to the collapse of living standards in the wake of the Junta’s reforms, resulting from the price hikes of food and fuel, without making any kind of political analysis.

The Economics Institute of the Catholic University was initially reluctant to publish the report. They sent it to the Military Junta for its approval prior to its release.

I left Chile for Peru  in December. The report was released as a working paper (200 copies) by the Catholic University a few days after my departure.

In Peru, where I joined the Economics Department of the Catholic University of Peru, I was able to write up a more detailed study of the Junta’s neoliberal reforms and its ideological underpinnings. This study was was published in 1975 in English and Spanish.

Needless to say, the events of September 11 1973 also marked me profoundly in my work as an economist. Through the tampering of prices, wages and interest rates, people’s lives had been destroyed; an entire national economy had been destabilized. Macro-economic reform was neither “neutral” –as claimed by the academic mainstream– nor separate from the broader process of social and political transformation.

I also started to understand the role of military-intelligence operations in support of what is usually described as a process of “economic restructuring”. In my earlier writings on the Chilean military Junta, I looked upon the so-called “free market” reforms as a well-organized instrument of “economic repression.”

Two years later, I returned to Latin America as a Visiting professor at the National University of Cordoba in the northern industrial heartland of Argentina under the auspices of an ILO project.

My stay coincided with the 1976 military coup d’État. Tens of thousands of people were arrested; the “Desaparecidos” were assassinated. The military takeover in Argentina was “a carbon copy” of the CIA-led coup in Chile.

And behind the massacres and human rights violations, “free market” reforms had also been prescribed, this time under the supervision of Argentina’s New York creditors.

The IMF’s deadly economic prescriptions under the “structural adjustment program” had not yet been officially launched. The experience of Chile and Argentina under the “Chicago boys” was “a dress rehearsal” of things to come.

In due course, the economic bullets of the free market system were hitting country after country.

Since the onslaught of the debt crisis of the 1980s, the same IMF economic medicine has routinely been applied in more than 150 developing countries. From my earlier work in Chile, Argentina and Peru, I started to investigate the global impacts of these reforms. Relentlessly feeding on poverty and economic dislocation, a New World Order was taking shape.

(For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,The Globalisation of Poverty and the New World Order, Second Edition, Global Research, 2003 

[This forward with minor edits was initially published ten years ago to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the September 1,, 1973 military coup]

Michel Chossudovsky,  11 September 2003  [minor revisions September 10, 2013, September 21, 2021]


For details see http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KOR309A.html  and references below

2. See Interview with Renan Fuentealba at  http://www.finisterrae.cl/cidoc/citahistoria/emol/emol_22092002.htm

3. See http://www.fjguzman.cl/interiores/noticias/tema_se/2003/julio/Patricio%20Aylwin%20y%20la%20dictadura%20transitoria.pdf , See also: El acuerdo que anticipó el golpe, http://www.quepasa.cl/revista/2003/08/22/t-22.08.QP.NAC.ACUERDO.html


The Ingredients of a Military Coup

by Michel Chossudovsky

[Catholic University of Chile, September 1973, Unpublished draft]

First published by Global Research, September 11, 2003

Original 1973 draft: click to enlarge

The transition to a right-wing military regime in Chile on September 11 [1973] has resulted after a lengthy and drawn-out process of economic boycott, subversion within the Armed Forces and political opposition to Allende’s Popular unity government.

In October 1970, General René Schneider was assassinated in a plot of the ultra-right together with seditious elements of the Armed Forces led by General Roberto Viaux. The assassination of General Schneider was part of a coordinated plan to prevent Parliament from ratifying Allende’s victory in the September 1970 presidential elections.

Last year’s [1972] October strike which paralyzed the economy for over a month, was organized by the gremios (employers’ organizations together with opposition labor and self employed organizations), the Partido Nacional and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad. Some sectors of the Christian Democratic Party were also involved.

The October Strike had initially been planned for September 1972. “Plan Septiembre”  was apparently postponed due to the sudden dismissal of General Alfredo Canales from the Armed Forces. Canales together with Air Force General Herrera Latoja had earlier been in touch with Miguel Ubilla Torrealba of the nationalist front Patria y Libertad. Ubilla Torrealba was said to have been closely connected to the CIA. Despite General Canales premature retirement from the Armed Forces, Plan Septiembre was implemented in October beginning with a transport strike. The Right was hoping that those elements of the Armed forces, which had been inspired by General Canales would intervene against Allende. The October “Patronal” strike (employers and self-employed) failed due to the support of the Armed Forces headed by General Carlos Prats, who had integrated Allende’s cabinet as Minister of the Interior.

The June Failed Coup

On June 29, 1973, Coronal Roberto Souper led his tank division in an isolated attack on La Moneda, the Presidential Palace, in the hope that other units of the armed forces would join in. The June coup had initially been planned for the morning of September 27 by Patria y Libertad as well as by several high ranking military officers. The plans were found out by Military Intelligence and the coup was called off at 6pm on the 26th. A warrant for the arrest of Coronal Souper had been issued. Confronted with knowledge of his impending arrest, Colonel Souper in consultation with the officers under his command, decided to act in a most improvised fashion. At 9 am, amidst morning rush hour traffic, Tank Division Number Two drove down Bernardo O’Higgins, Santiago’s main down-town avenue towards the Presidential Palace.

While the aborted June Coup had the appearance of an insolated and uncoordinated initiative, there was evidence of considerable support in various sectors of the Navy as well as from Air Force General Gustovo Leigh, now [September 1973] member of the military junta [on 11 September General Leigh integrated the military Junta headed by General Pinochet]. According to well-informed sources, several high ranking officers in the aero-naval base of Quintero near Valparaiso had proposed the bombing of State enterprises controlled by militant left wing groups, as well as the setting up of an air corridor to transport navy troops. The latter were slated to join up with the forces of Colonel Souper in Santiago.

The June trial coup was «useful» indicating to the seditious elements within the Chilean Armed Forces that an isolated and uncoordinated effort would fail. After June 29, the right-wing elements in the Navy and the Air Force were involved in a process of consolidation aimed at gaining political support among officers and sub-officers. The Army, however, was still under the control of Commander in Chief General Carols Prats, who had previously integrated Allende’s cabinet and who was a firm supporter of constitutional government.

Meanwhile in the political arena, the Christian Democrats were pressuring Allende to bring in members of the Military into the Cabinet as well as significantly revise the programme and platform of the Unidad Popular. Party leaders of the government coalition considered this alternative [proposed by the Christian democrats] as a « legalized military coup» (golpe legal) and advised Allende to turn it down. Carlos Altamirano, leader of the Socialist Party had demanded that an endorsement of the programme of the Popular Unity coalition by the military be a sina qua non condition for their entry into the Cabinet. Upon the impossibility of bringing in the Military into the Cabinet on acceptable terms, Allende envisaged the formation of a so-called “Cabinet of Consolidation” composed of well known personalities. Fernando Castillo, rector of the Catholic University and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, Felipe Herrera, President of the Inter-|American Development Bank and other prominent personalities were approached