The Taliban Take Kabul

August 16th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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 unfolded as a story of fleeing.  The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, taking flight to Tajikistan, giving little clue of his intentions to colleagues.  The fleeing of the infamous Abdul Rashid Dostum, a warlord assured to to fight another day. The fleeing of tens of thousands of residents out of the city of Kabul, long seen as beyond the reach of insurgents.  The fleeing of Coalition embassy personnel, aided by freshly deployed troops from the United States and the UK sent into Afghanistan as a matter of urgency. The Taliban had taken Kabul.

In departing and leaving stranded colleagues to their fate, the bookish Ghani, preferring pen to gun, had time to leave a message on Facebook.  One could never accuse the man of having wells of courage. He reflected on either facing armed Taliban fighters or leaving his beloved country.  In order to avoid immolating Kabul, which “would have been a big human disaster”, he chose a hasty exit. 

Only a few days prior, on August 11, Ghani had flown to Mazar-i-Sharif, in the company of the blood lusty Uzbek Dostum, supposedly to hold the fort against the Taliban with another warlord, the ethnic Tajik Atta Muhammad Noor.  Noor had pledged in June to mobilise the citizenry of Balkh province to fight the Taliban.  “God forbid, the fall of Balkh,” he declared at the time, “means the fall of the north and the fall of the north means the fall of Afghanistan.”

This was not a move greeted with universal joy.  Habib-ur-Rahman of the leadership council of the political and paramilitary group Hizb-e-Islami saw a bit of self-aggrandizing at work, hardly remarkable for a warlord keen to oversee his bit of real estate.  “The mobilisation of the people by politicians under the pretext of supporting security forces – with the use of public uprising forces – fuels the war from one side and from the other it affects Afghanistan’s stance in foreign policy.”

The shoring up mission led by Ghani would do little to conceal the historical differences between Noor and Dostum.  The former had done battle with Dostum’s troops during the latter’s time as a regional commander in the ailing Soviet-backed Afghan government.  Dostum’s defection from the government (one spots the common theme) in 1992 to form the Junbish-e-Milli party presented Noor with a chance to join forces.  But the Tajik left Dostum in 1993 citing irreconcilable ideological differences.  With the initial defeat of the Taliban, Noor triumphed in several military encounters with the frustrated Uzbek, seizing the Balkh province in its entirety. 

The accord reached between the parties on this occasion certainly did not involve agreeing to fight the Taliban.  Both had come to the conclusion that scurrying to Uzbekistan was a sounder proposition.  Noor subsequently justified the measure by claiming enigmatically that, “They had orchestrated the plot to trap Marshal Dostum and myself too, but they didn’t succeed.”  Ghani would soon follow.

Members of Ghani’s imploding government have not taken kindly to the flight of their leader.  “Curse Ghani and his gang,” wrote acting defence minister, Bismillah Khan Mohammadi.  “They tied our hands from behind and sold the country.” 

The head of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah also released a video withering in announcing that, “The former president of Afghanistan” had “left the country in this difficult situation.”  God, he suggested, “should hold him accountable.”  Abdullah, along with former President Harmid Karzai and Hizb-e-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are currently in negotiations with the Taliban over the formal transfer of power.

The US and UK have deployed personnel in a hurried panic.  Over the weekend, President Joe Biden, in announcing the deployment of 5,000 troops, told the press that they would ensure “we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel, and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission and those at special risk from the Taliban advance.”  Another thousand have also been added to the complement.

There was much embarrassment in all of this.  The US and its allies made the fundamental error that training, money and expertise would somehow miraculously guarantee the stability, continuity and reliability of a ramshackle regime.  Biden, in coming up with his own phraseology, had stated that a Taliban victory was “not inevitable”.  In July, we were given a nugget of Bidenese that, while he had little trust for the Taliban, he did “trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- – more competent in terms of conducting war.”  

As the Taliban was securing the capital, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken parried evident parallels with the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.  “This is manifestly not Saigon,” he said with little conviction.  

Now, the scene was one of grave, turbaned and bearded men, armed to the teeth, overseeing the desk which Ghani previously occupied in the presidential palace.  They had survived and outwitted an army better armed and supposedly better trained. They had survived airstrikes launched from within the country and from bases in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, via heavy bombers and lethal drones.  They had survived the forces of the US, NATO and rival militias.

They now find themselves in control of an entity they wish to be recognised as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.  History has come in its full violent circle.  A group of insurgents dismissed as fundamentalist mountain savages who would be vanquished before the modernising incentives of the West have shown up, as previous Afghan fighters have, the futility and sheer folly of meddling in their country’s affairs.


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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from VOA News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Corporate Council on Africa (CCA), the leading reputable U.S. business association with a strategic focus on connecting business interests between the United States and Africa, has held the 13th U.S.-Africa Business Summit. The U.S. government and private sector leaders together with African political and corporate business leaders have been working consistently over these years to share insights on critical issues and policies influencing the U.S.-Africa economic partnership.

The three-day Summit held virtually included 5 plenaries and 12 panel sessions highlighting key economic recovery strategies and focused on a range of sectors and issues, including health and vaccine access, trade, digital transformation, infrastructure, financing, small and medium scale enterprises, tourism, women’s leadership and investment opportunities in various African countries.

Here are some highlights:

The high-level dialogue set the scene for reviewing the opportunities for United States and African public and private sector leaders, how to strengthen the economic partnership between the United States and Africa. Prosper Africa, investments in key sectors such as gas, exploration of possible new bilateral trade agreements, extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

The Role of Women’s Leadership in Driving an Inclusive Recovery: The United States will drive a pandemic recovery and put women at the forefront. It has contributed 25 million vaccines for Africa. It implies to make sure incorporating women’s perspective in their efforts. “When women are empowered, they empower their families, they empower their communities and they empower their countries.”

Thokozile Ruzvidzo, Director of the Gender, Poverty and Social Policy Division, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) said that there are six critical things for women to benefit from the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). These include: closing the gender gap as it relates to access to finance, empowering women in the export sector, regional value chains and procurement and ensuring that we include the voice of women in the AFCFTA implementation efforts.

New Pathways to a Strong U.S.-Africa Trade Relationship focused on a range of issues, from implementing the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement (AfCFTA), boosting Africa’s trade with the U.S. including through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), pursuing agreements that go beyond AGOA, such as the U.S.-Kenya FTA. It will be pursuing public private partnerships that support U.S. and African businesses, including women owned and led SMEs.

U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, noted as top priorities for the Biden-Harris Administration the defeat of COVID and helping facilitate a robust global economic recovery. She pointed to trade as a key part of that effort and the determination to implement policies that benefit not only those at the top but foster inclusive and sustainable development, support regional integration, and ensure that all citizens benefit from the global economy.

H.E. Wamkele Mene, Secretary General of the AfCFTA Secretariat, highlighted the significant progress that has been made in advancing the AfCFTA — with 40 countries that have now ratified the agreement, Phase 1 covering trade in goods and services concluded, and 86% of the rules of origin completed. He noted that “AfCFTA has unlocked value chains for investors – especially U.S. investors – in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, agro-processing, and financial technology.”

Ethiopian Airlines CEO Tewolde GebreMariam noted that as the largest air cargo carrier in Africa with hubs in countries across the continent and the airline is successfully connecting Africa with the rest of the world – both for cargo and for passengers and tourism. He urged, though, that more be done to facilitate increased investment, trade and tourism in Africa and to support the AfCFTA vision and goals.

That the U.S. trade policy now transforms beyond the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was at the core of remarks by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Constance Hamilton. She noted that under the Biden-Harris Administration, they will be ramping up engagement with the AfCFTA Secretariat to support African regional integration, while looking to build stronger relationships with willing African nations through bilateral engagement. She noted the plans to hold a Trade Ministerial conference in 2021, and to engage with a range of stakeholders to explore ways to enhance the U.S.-Africa trade relationship.

Infrastructure Development: Catalyst for Economic Reboot. The Infrastructure session highlighted the growing financing gap in Africa and the importance of renewed public-private partnerships in the development of infrastructure projects.

Minister de Lille of South Africa and Serge Ekue of the West African Development Bank and other panelists suggested that a way to address those flaws is to “implement rigorous master planning that will first help identify bankable projects and then prepare them efficiently while raising local capacity.” Infrastructure is not just about the value of the money. It is about the value of the social impact on our communities. These indicated that countries pursue ways to bridge financing infrastructure in Africa.

Beyond Covid-19: Pathways to Resilient Health Systems in Africa. Building blocks for pathways to resilient health systems in Africa: Lessons from preparation and addressing the pandemic including a one-health multi-sectoral approach in addressing current and future pandemics. WHO and other partners have continued to play a critical role in building the capacity of African countries to cope with an overstretched health system during the pandemic.

It is important to invest in sustainable approaches that bring services close to the patients. These include strong primary healthcare (PHC) as the foundation for strengthening health systems, including the integration of services with a multi-disciplinary team. Looking forward, there are opportunities for impact investing in health in Africa by deploying financial resources that can have financial returns/commercial opportunities while improving health outcomes.

Closing the Trade Finance Gap: A Pathway to Supporting More SMEs, Diaspora, and Women Owned Businesses
This session highlighted the trade finance gap with African, Diaspora, SMEs and Women owned businesses and how organizations can contribute to reduce (or eliminate) the gap.

Participants discussed the impact of the pandemic on their organizations and initiatives contributing to economic activity recovery, as well as improving business operations. Panelists also highlighted the importance of diversifying both suppliers and clients, in addition to looking beyond the immediate market to new partnerships.

The diverse panel emphasized the growing trend of digitalization of SMEs and African business operations. Moving to digital and connected operations will help businesses not only simplify operations but also allow them to reach customers in places they were not able to operate before. This also will positively impact the relationship between Diaspora businesses and businesses on the continent. Panelists concluded that implementing strategies that will enable African SMEs to grow, build capacity, find new U.S. partners, and access cheap and easily available capital will be crucial to close the trade finance gap.

Building a Sustainable Agribusiness Ecosystem

Panelists agreed that diversification was the way to improve the agribusiness sector. Collaboration between U.S. and African companies will help achieve sustainable development through increased access to investment financing and access to global markets for African companies.

Achieving diversification will require producing more value-added products, which will be achieved through investment in industrialization, R&D, and technology. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and favorable government policies will be key to funding these efforts. Investing in SMEs will be vital to improving agribusiness value chains since SMEs are deeply integrated at every level from retailers to crop transporters. Helping scale up these SME’s make the value-chains more productive and improve the sector’s output.

Digital Transformation – Pathway for Enabling African Business Environment

Digital Transformation – Pathway for Enabling African Business Environment plenary highlighted the role of the private sector and government to drive all-inclusive African digital transformation.

In his remarks, South African Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition, Ebrahim Patel highlighted that digital technology is a critical tool and a critical enabler to build economic growth and economic opportunities.

Digital technologies will help create new products and new markets for millions of Africans. Policymakers, corporations, and entrepreneurs have a unique partnership opportunity to develop digital infrastructure, skills, and ecosystems. Minister Patel invited the private sector to share ideas and suggestions to make the AfCFTA e-commerce protocol fit for purpose.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the digitalization of life and work. As a result, technology companies are developing lifesaving products and services. For example, Google and Apple developed exposure notification technology, which helps slow the spread of COVID-19. Google also developed a range of products for remote education.

As African businesses and consumers have shifted towards e-commerce and digital payments, companies like Visa have accelerated the rollout of payment infrastructure. For digital trade and digital economy to work effectively, panelists recommended that the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) be implemented to establish a continent-wide harmonization of business-friendly rules and regulations.

The Future of Energy in Africa: Transition and Pathway to Cleaner Energy

The session drew high-level participants from the U.S. Government, African countries, and the private sector to discuss the need for public-private sector collaboration on energy transition in Africa and innovative thinking on the critical need to address energy poverty and access to electricity in Africa while advancing the urgent fight against global warming.

Joining U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, from the USG were senior U.S. government officials from the Departments of Energy and State, and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC). Also participating in the dialogue were Ministers of Energy and senior African officials from Angola, Egypt, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Senegal, as well as CEOs and other top executives from a range of U.S. and African oil, gas, and power companies and major investors in the sector.

The Hon. John Kerry stated that tackling climate change is a top priority for the United States and reiterated the U.S. government commitment to encouraging other countries to achieve their respective climate and clean energy goals. It was noted that more African countries need to sign on to the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change as it is important that all countries work together to address global climate change.

Other U. S. government officials acknowledged energy poverty in Africa and noted that improving energy access in Africa is paramount to the U.S. government as it continues to invest in electricity systems in Africa through initiatives like Power Africa. They also noted that even while the United States is pushing for a strong political commitment from African to prioritizing and meeting climate change goals, the U. S. government will continue to support and finance energy projects (including some in gas) in Africa, particularly where renewable energy options may not be viable.

African Ministers and government officials shared the strategies they have adopted in their respective countries to both adopt clean energy technologies in oil and gas, while also investing in renewable energy options. In Senegal, Egypt and Angola, renewable energy is at the forefront of energy transition strategies and initiatives, and it was noted that collaborations with international partners is essential to achieving long term energy and climate change goals in Africa.

CEOs and senior executives of companies with operations in Africa who participated in the session highlighted that they are actively working on energy access in Africa, see gas (particularly abated gas) as a medium term, low cost transition option to address climate change, while some are also investing in and financing renewable energy projects in Africa.

There were calls for fair treatment of Africa, in terms of climate change, as well as for the U. S. government to prioritize development over climate change when it comes to Africa, and to continue financing gas projects in Africa for the next 5-7 years, which some thought could actually help meet climate goals faster as Africans (especially those in rural areas) shift from wood burning to use of gas to cook. Noting the complexity of these energy issues, many agreed that public-private partnerships are crucial to renewable energy transitions, and thought that further dialogues like this one leading up to the COP 26 talks scheduled to take place in Glascow in November 2021 would be crucial in the U.S. and Africans reaching a common understanding about the way forward on the future of energy and climate in Africa.

Looking Forward: Biden-Harris Administration is prioritizing economic relationship with Africa. Dana Banks, White House Senior Director for Africa, announced the White House Administration made a request for $80 million in additional funding to push for the Prosper Africa Build Together Campaign that will drive billions of dollars of investment in Africa, build new markets for American products and create thousands of jobs for African and American workers.

The U.S.-Africa Business Summit 2021 was sponsored by leading global businesses and organizations. U.S. government has Prosper Africa, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Young African Leaders Initiatives among other tools for connecting and working effectively with Africa. The summit outcomes were highly appreciated, as it offers grounds for scaling up U.S.-Africa relations. The 13th summit, was organized and coordinated by Corporate Council on Africa, was broadly viewed as an effort directed at building new pathways to strengthen further the economic partnership between United States and Africa. [….]


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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Africa Relations: Corporate Council on Africa Hosted the 13th U.S.-Africa Business Summit
  • 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.


Stew Peters interviewed American Airlines pilot Joshua Yoder, who deplored the position taken by United Airlines as 68,000 of its employees face the choice of submitting to an experimental medical procedure or lose their sources of livelihood. Criticizing United Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association, Yoder applauded the position of American Airlines leadership, highlighting the welcoming work environment and humane treatment of employees.

“This may be the greatest safety-of-flight issue the airlines have ever faced,” Yoder said. “What if myocarditis becomes a larger issue, and pilots start to lose their medicals, let’s say three or four years in; it could completely bring the aviation industry to its knees, if they have pilots who can’t pass their medicals in a couple of years.”

Recognizing early-on that requiring mandatory vaccination for a virus that, according to the CDC, is 99.97% survivable by the the pilot demographic is not rational medical practice, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has since December sought to pre-empt catastrophic outcomes of misguided policies with legal and civic action. In a March letter addressed to Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA) Union Scheduler Scott Pryler, America’s Frontline Doctors Founder Dr. Simone Gold urged Pryler to consider “both health and legal ramifications if the union backs a direct crew vaccine mandate or other mechanisms that effectively force or coerce crew vaccination.”

“On behalf of hundreds of airline pilots who have contacted America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) requesting independent medical information regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Gold presented findings that “raise significant concerns in light of reports that airline executives and union representatives are considering agreeing to COVID-19 vaccination mandates for airline employees.” She said “proposed COVID vaccine mandates are troubling for multiple reasons, including the law, safety, and liability.”

AFLDS sent similar letters to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA ), and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

An AFLDS-initiated petition to stop forced experimental vaccines affirmed that “your health and medical conditions are personal and private and nobody should be permitted to violate that, including an employer, an airline, or a government agency.”

In June, AFLDS held a panel discussion to examine waning freedom of movement:

In response to the discussion, and reflecting similar concerns to those expressed by Yoder, Netizen C130Avi8Trx wrote: “As a pilot, and someone with training in aviation physiology, I have questions/concerns about how the effects of altitude potentially can change or alter or compound any side effects of these vaccines.

“What if you have blood clotting starting – does the lower cabin pressure cause them to more easily dislodge which could cause instant cardiac arrest, or embolism?

“The same with the airlines mask mandates – what about hypoxia? What if there is a rapid decompression at altitude – how would these vaccines affect the crew, pilots, and passengers? Not to mention masked passengers struggling with putting oxygen masks on. Any one who’s gone through rapid decompression training in an altitude chamber can tell you people don’t act right – and passengers that are untrained and scared may not think to remove their face diaper first.

“It seems flight attendants have forgotten their main role is safety in the event of an emergency – not being COVID police. Why has no one addressed this?” (edited for clarity)

To illustrate the “oppressive stance taken by United,” Peters cited an email sent by United Master Executive Council Union for United Airlines pilots (UALMEC) Chairman Todd Insler, in which Insler denies the historic precedent that loss of medical freedom is one of the steps that precedes genocide:

Peters provided emails of airline executives so that citizens may “make their voices heard”: United Airlines CEO [email protected]; Todd Insler: [email protected]; Doug Parker (American Airlines CEO, “doing the right thing”): [email protected]; American Airlines Union: [email protected].


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 iStock

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.


News of India’s defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one’s face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. See this.

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin. See this.

One can see the bias in Wikipedia by going on the “talk” pages for each subject and reading about the fierce attempts of editors to add these facts and the stone wall refusals by the “senior” editors who have an agenda. And that agenda is not loyalty to your health.

The easy way to read the “talk” page on any Wikipedia subject is to click the top left “talk” button. Anyone can then review the editors’ discussions.

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, “But why is there no mention of that in the news?”

Yes, exactly. Ask yourself why India’s success against the Delta variant with Ivermectin is such a closely guarded secret by the NIH and CDC. Second, ask yourself why no major media outlets reported this fact, but instead, tried to confuse you with false information by saying the deaths in India are 10 times greater than official reports. See this.

Perhaps NPR is trying so hard because NPR is essentially a government mouthpiece. The US government is “all-in” with vaccines with the enthusiasm of a 17th century Catholic Church “all-in” with a Geocentric Model of the Universe disputing Galileo. Claiming that India’s numbers are inaccurate might distract from the overwhelming success of Ivermectin.

But in the end, the truth matters. It mattered in 1616, and it matters in 2021.

Ivermectin graphs

The graphs and data from the Johns Hopkins University CSSE database do not lie. On the contrary, they provide a compelling trail of truth that no one can dispute, not even the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.

Just as Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe in 1616; today, the data from India shows that Ivermectin is effective, much more so than the vaccines. It not only prevents death, but it also prevents COVID infections, and it also is effective against the Delta Variant.

In 1616, you could not make up the telescopic images of Jupiter and its orbiting moons, nor could you falsify the crescent-shaped images of Venus and Mercury. These proved that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe – a truth the Catholic Church could not allow.

Likewise, the massive drop in cases and deaths in India to almost nothing after the addition of Ivermectin proved the drug’s effectiveness. This is a truth that the NIH, CDC, and FDA cannot allow because it would endanger the vaccine policy.

Never mind that Ivermectin would save more lives with much less risk, much less cost, and it would end the pandemic quickly.

Let us look at the burgundy-colored graph of Uttar Pradesh. First, allow me to thank Juan Chamie, a highly-respected Cambridge-based data analyst, who created this graph from the JHU CSSE data. Uttar Pradesh is a state in India that contains 241 million people. The United States’ population is 331 million people. Therefore, Uttar Pradesh can be compared to the United States, with 2/3 of our population size.

This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 cases and deaths – which we know were Delta Variant – down to almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol.

By comparison, the United States is the lower graph. On August 5, here in the good ol’ USA, blessed with the glorious vaccines, we have 127,108 new cases per day and 574 new deaths.

Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.

It is not even close. Countries do orders of magnitude better WITH Ivermectin. It might be comparable to the difference in travel between using an automobile versus a horse and buggy.

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin:  Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 26
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 3

The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 127,108
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 61
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 24
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 0
Now let us look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin. See this.

Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases. See this.

Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire. See this.

Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]

  • COVID Daily Cases: 1,997
  • COVID Daily Deaths: 33

Like the JHU CSSE data, Galileo’s telescope did not lie either, and the truth can usually be found in plain sight. Ivermectin works, and it works exceedingly well. Harvard-trained virologist Dr. George Fareed and his associate, Dr. Brian Tyson of California’s Imperial Valley, have saved 99.9% of their patients with a COVID Cocktail that includes Ivermectin. They have released versions of their new book published in the Desert Review that everyone should read. See this.

I could talk about how every one of my patients who used Ivermectin recovered rapidly, about my most recent case who felt 90% better within 48 hours of adding the drug, but I won’t. I could write about how Wikipedia censors more than Pravda, about how you should always read the “talk” section of EVERY Wikipedia article to go behind the scenes and understand what the editors DO NOT want you to read, but I will refrain.

I could write about VAERS and how it is so much easier to navigate by following Open VAERS or how Wikipedia has unfairly portrayed Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world’s sharpest and most credible doctors. But I will hold back. See this.

I could also discuss our current cancer treatment system’s dangers and how chemotherapy and radiation stimulate cancer stem cells and cancer recurrence. About how this information has been suppressed and how the addition of repurposed drug cocktails can help prevent this, but I digress. See this.

I could recite the history of early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin, with all the specifics, and EXACTLY WHY this lifesaving information has been censored, but instead, I will leave researching these topics to each of you readers as individuals. See this.

Because you already know what will happen if you simply sit back and swallow what the media are feeding you. You MUST question what the government tells you, and always DO YOUR OWN research.

Following the 1616 Inquisition of Galileo, the Pope banned all books and letters that argued the sun was the center of the Universe instead of the Earth. Similarly, today, the FDA and WHO have banned any use of Ivermectin for COVID outside of a clinical trial.

See this and this.

YouTube and Wikipedia both consider Ivermectin for COVID as heresy.

“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19… Treatment misinformation: claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.”

Wikipedia defines heresy as: “any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization. The term is usually used in reference to violations of important religious teachings, but is also used of views strongly opposed to any generally accepted ideas. A heretic is a proponent of heresy.”

Heresy is disagreeing with the government, or their health authority, even if they are all wrong and even if their policies harm people. Today we no longer call it heresy; it is labeled as misinformation.

Galileo was found guilty of heresy and sentenced on June 22, 1633, to formal imprisonment, although this was commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.

On August 7, 2021 Medpage Today published a new quiz, “Can COVID Misinformation Cost You Your Medical License?”


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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


He had the right to remain in office as the country’s internationally recognized leader, but clinging to power on this unconvincing so-called “democratic pretext” was really nothing more than a ruse for disguising his personal self-interest and unnecessarily prolonged the war at everyone’s expense.

The Afghan peace process ultimately failed because of President Ashraf Ghani and that’s why the Taliban had to resort to military means to end the civil war. The Taliban demanded that he resign as the first step towards a transitional government, which he only just did because he literally had no other choice. The former Afghan leader was re-elected under contentious circumstances that some observers believe involved a large degree of fraud, and he didn’t enjoy much support outside of the country’s urban areas. The rural majority of the population considered him to be a foreign puppet, which was also the Taliban’s stance as well.

Ghani’s rule was characterized by his unsuccessful attempts at centralizing the country’s historically decentralized tribal society in order to solidify his role as its undisputed leader. These efforts were bound to fail and only worsened Afghanistan’s multi-sided divisions, which he also attempted to exploit for self-interested political reasons but with a similar lack of success. These failures counterproductively increased the Taliban’s appeal among many by comparison while demoralizing members of the Afghan National Army (ANA) who recently surrendered or fled en masse during the group’s nationwide offensive over the past two weeks.

Those Afghans who militarily resisted the Taliban, whether as part of the ANA or one of the country’s many militias, fought not out of loyalty to Ghani or even their US-backed state per se but mostly due to fear of that group. The Taliban’s prior rule over most of Afghanistan was extremely unpleasant for many urban dwellers as well as some minorities and women, to put it mildly. They were afraid of what would happen to them and their foreign-supported way of life if the Taliban returned to power. That’s why the group strictly kept its word to respect the legitimate interests of those three categories of its compatriots as it swept through the country.

Even so, Ghani refused to resign until the very last minute. He almost seemed to have wanted the Taliban to attack Kabul in the most violent way possible in order to worsen the country’s humanitarian crisis as a last-ditch attempt at getting one of his government’s partners to decisively intervene in his support. Instead of falling into that trap, the Taliban wisely leveraged its extensive network of influence and proven compassion towards its opponents over the past two weeks to convince most of the remaining forces against its rising rule to peacefully surrender without a fight in order spare the capital and its millions of residents from undue hardships.

What everything ultimately came down to was that Ghani was the greatest obstacle to peace in Afghanistan all along. His ego got in the way of the national interest. Everyone’s suffering was worsened precisely because he refused to resign in accordance with the Taliban’s demands that reflected the will of a growing number of his own people as well. Of course, he had the right to remain in office as the country’s internationally recognized leader, but clinging to power on this unconvincing so-called “democratic pretext” was really nothing more than a ruse for disguising his personal self-interest and unnecessarily prolonged the war at everyone’s expense.


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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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 popular online dictionary,, has had the same definition for “vaccine” for several years.

Here is the definition until early to mid-January, 2021:

By January 26, 2021 it was changed to include a section on “genetic material” and mRNA:

Apparently that was not quite good enough to silence the critics who were claiming that the COVID-19 shots did not meet the definition of a “vaccine,” so it was changed again by June 1, 2021 to include examples of mRNA “vaccines” such as Moderna and Pfizer, “viral vector” vaccines such as J&J and AstraZeneca, and a completely new definition to cover some “vaccines” the military is working on: a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases.

I wonder what this “definition” of “vaccines” will be expanded to include next?

Noah Webster Jr. was the original founder of America’s most famous dictionary, and in 1831, George and Charles Merriam founded the company as G & C Merriam Co.

In 1964, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. acquired Merriam-Webster, Inc.

In 1996, Britannica was purchased by Jacob E. Safra, a Jewish Swiss-bank financier.


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 HIN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Evolving Definition of “Vaccine” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for 2021
  • 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.


Thousands of outraged citizens gathered in the streets of Montreal on Saturday to protest the coming implementation of a vaccine passport system that is set to rollout on September first. The mandatory papers will control individual access in a multitude of settings, such as events, bars, restaurants and gyms in an effort to force people into taking the experimental jab. 

Protesters held signs that said “NO Vaccine Passports” as they chanted for their freedom. Even a few Trump flags made an appearance in the massive crowd.

The State-sponsored fake news hacks at Montreal Gazette claimed this was a crowd of “hundreds,” but the view from videos on the ground say it all.

Protesters were demanding that the government immediately hold an emergency public debate to reverse the totalitarian mandate because it is discriminatory and infringes on their civil rights.

Unsurprisingly, officials did not grant their requests, citing the emergency powers that have enabled them to commit these gross violations of liberty since the start of the pandemic.

They fear an open discussion because it would potentially fuel ‘dangerous conspiracy theories.’

According to them, noticing that the majority of new cases are among the vaccinated is akin to believing in lizard people.

Premier Francois Legault has rejected the idea of a debate, saying it would expose Quebecers to inaccurate, dangerous conspiracy theories about vaccines.

Instead of listening to citizens, the liberal-dominated government is expected to put even more restrictions in place as new Covid variants continue to spread across Canada. Canadian Prime Minister, Justin ‘blackface’ Trudeau, just announced that all federal employees, as well as any travelers on planes, trains, or ships, must be fully vaccinated by the Fall. 

Canadians are planning to protest until the government makes changes and allows a public forum and they know these tyrants won’t give up their newfound authority without a fight.

Canada is just the latest country to experience a massive uprising. Americans should wake up and follow suit. 


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 Gateway Pundit

Letter from London: Worrying Turn in Assange Case

August 16th, 2021 by Alexander Mercouris

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 my previous letter I discussed how Julian Assange’s case had taken a strange and worrying twist. The results of Wednesday’s High Court hearing is even more troubling for the WikiLeaks publisher. 

The High Court in July granted the U.S. government permission to appeal the Jan. 4 decision of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to refuse the U.S. government’s request for Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he faces charges under the Espionage Act 1917 and for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

The grant of permission was however limited to essentially a single ground: whether Baraitser erred by failing to provide the U.S. government with an opportunity to provide her with ‘assurances’ about the conditions of detention in which Assange would be held if he were extradited and convicted in the United States.

Permission to appeal on another ground, whether Baraitser was right to base her assessment of Assange’s health, and of the risk that he might commit suicide if he were to be kept in rigorous conditions of confinement in the United States, on the evidence of Professor Michael Kopelman, was however refused.

The U.S. government would not accept this decision, and in a most unusual step, obtained a hearing in the High Court on Wednesday in order to appeal that part of the High Court’s decision which had refused permission to challenge the part of the appeal which concerned the issues of Assange’s health and the evidence of Professor Kopelman.

As previously reported by Joe Lauria, at this hearing the High Court reversed its earlier decision to refuse the U.S. government permission to appeal the matter of Assange’s health.

This means the U.S. government has now obtained permission to appeal on all the grounds it has sought. The full appeal will be heard by the High Court on Oct. 27 and 28.

In my previous letter I said that both grounds of appeal looked threadbare.

There had been nothing to prevent the U.S. government from giving its ‘assurances’ (that it would not put Assange in special confinement and would let him serve his sentence in Australia) to Baraitser at the substantive hearing last September.

Its attempt to do so now, months after Baraitser’s decision had been made, was an attempt to use the appeal process in order to introduce the ‘assurances’ as new evidence in the case, so as to change a decision which had already been made. This makes the ‘assurances’ new evidence, which is normally inadmissible on appeal.

As for Baraitser’s decision to base her assessment of Assange’s health and of his potential risk of suicide on the evidence of Professor Kopelman, that was an assessment for her to make as the trial judge in the case, and there is no reason why the High Court on appeal should seek to interfere in it. Mr. Justice Swift, the High Court Judge who refused the U.S. government permission to appeal on this ground in July, was of precisely this view.

Holroyde’s Reasons for Extending Permission to Appeal

It is this decision of Swift which the High Court at Wednesday’s hearing has reversed. In doing so, the High Court admitted it is highly unusual for an appeal court to question a trial judge’s assessment of the evidence. However in this case supposedly it is ‘arguable’ that it should do so.

Lord Justice Holroyde, a Court of Appeal Judge senior to Mr. Justice Swift, explained the decision in this way:

“I bear very much in mind that the District Judge saw and heard from all the expert witnesses and made her assessment of Professor Kopelman with that advantage, which an appellate court cannot share. I accept that, in general, this court rightly takes a cautious approach when considering the findings of fact. They may consider challenges to findings of fact, including assessments made by the judge below. It is however, very unusual for an appellate court to have to consider the position of an expert witness whose written evidence have been found to be misleading, but whose opinion has nonetheless been accepted by the court below. The general approach does not operate as a complete bar for this court to find that the judge below was wrong in her assessment of the evidence. I have come to the conclusion that it is here at least arguable that the present case is one in which such a power may operate.”

Holroyde then went on to say that in his opinion Baraitser might have given a “more critical consideration” of Professor Kopelman’s evidence.

“For those reasons, I respectfully disagree with Mr Justice Swift. I would grant the appeal on ground three. It will be for the court in the appeal hearing to determine the admissibility of the initial evidence on which the appellant seeks to revive.”

No Mention of Assange Relationship

This issue has arisen because of an omission of a fact in Professor Kopelman’s first witness statement. In that statement Kopelman omitted to mention the fact that Assange was in a relationship with Stella Moris, with whom he has had two children.

Kopelman omitted this fact from his witness statement because of Moris’s understandable anxiety for privacy for her children. Kopelman, sympathetic to Moris’s anxiety but conscious of his duty to the Court, consulted Assange’s lawyers. They apparently agreed with him that the fact of Moris’s relationship with Assange, and the fact that they had had two children together, could be kept out of the witness statement without this diminishing its evidential value, and without this detracting from Kopelman’s duty to the Court.

It was quickly realised that this was a mistake, and in a second witness statement, which is Kopelman’s full expert report to the Court, he disclosed Assange’s relationship with Moris, and the fact that they had had two children together. This second witness statement was provided to the Court last year, before the start of the substantive hearing in the autumn, and was seen by Baraitser before the hearing began.

Baraitser accordingly made her decision to refuse extradition in the full knowledge that Kopelman’s first witness statement was incomplete, and that at the time when it was made Kopelman was concealing the existence of Assange’s relationship with Moris, and of the fact that the two had had children together. She was also aware of the reasons why this was done. In her judgment Baraitser both acknowledged the fact of the concealment, and excused it:

In my judgment, professor Kopelmans decision to conceal [Assange and Moriss] relationship was misleading and inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response to Ms. Moriss predicament…..In short, I found Professor Kopelmans opinion to be impartial and dispassionate; I was given no reason to doubt his motives or the reliability of his evidence.”

Holroyde and the High Court now say that this approach of Baraitser’s was ‘arguably’ wrong, and that Baraitser should have taken a ‘more critical consideration’ of Kopelman’s evidence than she did.

Open Route for U.S. to Give ‘Assurances’

At the October hearing, the question of the state of Assange’s health, and of the degree to which he really is a suicide risk, will be reconsidered. At that hearing the U.S. government can give its ‘assurances’ to the Court, which it did not previously give to Baraitser. Assuming the Court accepts the ‘assurances’, an order for Assange’s extradition to the U.S. may be made. If an appeal of that order to the Supreme Court is refused, Assange can be handed over to the United States, and the British authorities can wash their hands of the matter.

This is not a foregone conclusion. The High Court at the hearing in October is not bound to follow the opinions expressed by Holroyde at the hearing on Wednesday. His forthright comments show that he will not be part of the appeal panel which will hear the appeal in October.

However, though Holroyde was careful to say that the final decision is for the appeal panel in October to make, his words strongly imply that he thinks Baraitser should have handled Kopelman’s evidence differently.

The fact that Kopelman sought advice from Assange’s lawyers, who are technically officers of the Court, to my mind show that he did not intend to mislead the Court. As Baraitser put it, his actions, and those of the lawyers, were “an understandable human response to Ms. Moriss predicament”. No harm was intended or done. Though a mistake was made, it was corrected shortly after, and at the time of the hearing Baraitser was in possession of all the facts.

Baraitser, as the trial judge, was therefore in a position to assess the evidence, which Holroyde admits it was her right to do. Having assessed the evidence, and in full knowledge of all the facts, including those of the so-called “concealment.” she chose to give weight to the evidence of Kopelman, which she found to be “impartial and dispassionate”. There is no reason why an appeal court would want to interfere with such an approach, and as Holroyde admits, and as Swift found, ‘normally’ it would not do so.

In fact, Holroyde admitted that the High Court on appeal cannot itself revisit the evidence.  An appeal court is not a trial court.  Its only purpose is to decide whether or not Baraitser was wrong.  If it does decide on appeal that Baraitser was wrong – and it hasn’t done so yet, though Holroyde clearly thinks it should – it has two options:

(1) Send the issue back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, who would then decide the health issue all over again at a fresh hearing this time disregarding or placing little weight on Kopelman’s evidence; or

(2) Decide the issue of Assange’s health itself, at the same hearing as the hearing of the appeal, and directly after the appeal has been heard and decided, accepting Baraitser’s other findings of fact, but excluding or placing little weight on the evidence of professor Kopelman.

The proper course is (1) but I would not be at all surprised (if the appeal goes badly for Assange) that the High Court chooses (2).

Privacy of the Family an ECHR Protected Human Right

Ecuadorian embassy in London where Julian Assange took asylum. (Wikipedia)

There is moreover an absurd dimension to this whole affair. Assange, at the time when he began his relationship with Moris, was the target of round-the-clock surveillance by the U.S. and British authorities, who were spying on him in the Ecuadorian embassy, even to the point where they were observing his interactions with his lawyers.

It beggars belief that the U.S. and British authorities were unaware of Assange’s relationship with Moris, or of the fact that he had had two children by her.

At the time Kopelman drafted his first witness statement the extent to which Assange had been under placed under surveillance was known to Assange’s lawyers, and to Assange and Moris themselves. They would have known, or at the very least guessed, that the U.S. and British authorities were aware of Assange’s relationship with Moris, and of the fact that he had had two children by her. This is borne out by the testimony in a Spanish court last year that U.S. intelligence officers ordered the confiscation of one of the children’s nappies to prove Assange’s paternity by testing the DNA.

That makes it impossible that the omission of a reference to the relationship between Assange and Moris in Kopelman’s first witness statement was intended to conceal this relationship from the U.S. and British authorities, and from the Court, and that there was any intention to mislead the Court. Had such an attempt to conceal the relationship and the existence of the children from the Court been made, it would have failed, with catastrophic consequences for Assange’s case.

Obviously the concealment was intended, not to mislead the Court, but to conceal the existence of the relationship from Britain’s notoriously salacious tabloid press, who are able to access Court documents, such as Kopelman’s witness statement, which are documents of public record.

In other words it was intended to protect the family’s privacy, just as Kopelman, the lawyers, and Moris, say that it was.

Julian Assange in Ecuadorian embassy in London shot on UC Global surveillance tape.

The way it was done was certainly a mistake, but one made, as Baraitser says, for understandable human reasons, and clearly intended as a temporary measure to protect the privacy of the family until the moment came for full disclosure to the Court. This took place at a bail hearing in April 2020, months before the substantive hearing before Baraitser in the autumn of that year, and months before the U.S. filed its second superseding indictment, which was the indictment actually before the Court when the case was tried.

As Baraitser rightly says, the fact that these steps to protect the privacy of the family were taken, (privacy being a human right pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is part of British law) does not mean that Kopelman is not an “impartial and dispassionate” witness, even if some of the steps which were taken were wrong. It is wrong to say otherwise.

A Dark Turn and a Clouded Prospect

In my previous letter I wrote of the relentless way in which the U.S. government has pursued Julian Assange. Moreover its refusal to take no for an answer, and its readiness to resort to unusual procedural devices in order to get its way, looks from the latest decision to be starting to bear fruit. I doubt any other party would be able to bend events to its will in such a way.

Regardless, the case has taken a dark turn, and the prospects in October are clouded.


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.

Alexander Mercouris is a legal analyst, political commentator and editor of The Duran.

Featured image: The High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice. (David Castor/Wikimedia Commons)

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

First published on March 27, 2021


The top-down reorganization of the world economy by a cabal of technocratic corporativists, led by the group around the Davos World Economic Forum– the so-called Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030– is no future proposal. It is well into actualization as the world remains in insane lockdown for a virus. The hottest investment area since onset of the coronavirus global lockdowns is something called ESG investing.

This highly subjective and very controlled game is dramatically shifting global capital flows into a select group of “approved” corporate stocks and bonds. Notably it advances the dystopian UN Agenda 2030 or the WEF Great Reset agenda. The development is one of the most dangerous and least understood shifts in at least the past century.

The UN “sustainable economy” agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked “woke” companies, and away from the “not woke” such as oil and gas companies or coal.

What the bankers and giant investment funds like BlackRock have done is to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG—Environment, Social values and Governance.

For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term. How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO.

The crucial central goal of ESG strategists is to create a shift to inefficient and costly alternative energy, the Zero Carbon promised utopia. It is being driven by the world’s major financial institutions and central banks. They have created a dazzling array of organizations to drive their green investing agenda.

In 2013, well before the coronavirus, the major Wall Street bank, Morgan Stanley, created its own Institute for Sustainable Investing. This was soon expanded in 2015 when Morgan Stanley joined the Steering Committee of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). On its website the they state,

“PCAF is based upon the Paris Climate Agreement’s position that the global community should strive to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and that society should decarbonize and reach net zero emissions by 2050.”

By 2020 the PCAF had more than 100 banks and financial institutions including ABN Amro, Nat West, Lloyds Bank, Barclays, Bank of America, Citi Group, CIBC, Danske Bank and othersSeveral of the PCAF member banks have been indicted in money laundering cases. Now they sense a new role as virtue-models to change the world economy, if we are to believe the rhetoric. Notably, former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney is an “Observer” or consultant to the PCAF.

In August 2020 the PCAF published a draft standard outlining a proposed approach for global carbon accounting. This means the bankers are creating their own accounting rules for how to rate or value a company’s carbon footprint or green profile.

The Central Role of Mark Carney

Mark Carney is at the center of reorganizing world finance to back the UN 2030 green agenda behind the WEF Davos Great Reset, where he is a member of the Board of Trustees. He also is Adviser to the UN Secretary General as United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action. He has described the PCAF plan as follows:

To achieve net zero we need a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models, develop credible plans for the transition and implement them. For financial firms, that means reviewing more than the emissions generated by their own business activity. They must measure and report the emissions generated by the companies they invest in and lend to. PCAF’s work to standardise the approach to measuring financed emissions is an important step to ensuring that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”

As Governor of the Bank of England Carney played a key role getting world central banks behind the Green Agenda of the UN 2030 scheme. The major central banks of the world, through their umbrella Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, created a key part of the growing global infrastructure that is steering investment flows to “sustainable” companies and away from those like oil and gas companies it deems “unsustainable.”

When then-Bank of England Governor Mark Carney was head of the BIS’ Financial Stability Board (FSB) he established something called Task-force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) in 2015.

The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it included in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the world’s second largest reinsurance; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC.

Anne Finucane, the Vice Chair of the Bank of America, a member of both the PCAF and the TCFD, noted,

“we are committed to ensuring that climate-related risks and opportunities are properly managed within our business and that we are working with governments and markets to accelerate the changes required… climate change presents risks to the business community, and it is important for companies to articulate how these risks are being managed.”

The Bank of America vice chair describes how they assess risks in its real estate loan portfolio by assessing, “acute physical risk analysis on a sample portfolio of Bank of America residential mortgages across the US Each property was given a score based on the level of risk associated with 12 potential hazards: tornado, earthquake, tropical cyclone, hailstorm, wildfire, river flood, flash flood, coastal flood, lightning, tsunami, volcano, and winter storm.”

As well, the banks’ investment “risk” in oil and gas as well as other industrial sectors is reviewed using the criteria of Carney’s TCFD. All risks are defined as related to CO2, despite the fact there is no conclusive scientific proof that manmade CO2 emission is about to destroy our planet by global warming. Rather evidence of solar activity suggests we are entering an unstable cooling period, Grand Solar Minimum. That’s of no concern to the financial interests who stand to reap trillions in the coming decade.

Another key part of the financial preparation for the Great Reset, the fundamental transformation from a high-energy intensity economy to a low and economically inefficient one, is the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

SASB says it “provides a clear set of standards for reporting sustainability information across a wide range of issues… “ This sounds reassuring until we look at who makes up the members of the SASB that will give the Climate-friendly Imprimatur. Members include, in addition to the world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock (more than $7 trillion under management), also Vanguard Funds, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, State Street Global, Carlyle Group, Rockefeller Capital Management, and numerous major banks such as Bank of America and UBS. Many of these are responsible for the 2008 global financial collapse.

What is this framework group doing? According to their website, “Since 2011, we have has been working towards an ambitious goal of developing and maintaining sustainability accounting standards for 77 industries.”

Where this is all going is to create a web of globally-based financial entities who control combined wealth including insurance and pension funds into what they claim to be worth $100 trillion. They are setting the rules and will define a company or even a country by the degree of carbon emission they create.

If you are clean and green, you potentially get investment.

If you are deemed a carbon polluter as the oil, gas and coal industries are deemed today, the global capital flows will disinvest or avoid funding you.

The immediate target of this financial cabal is the backbone of the world economy, the oil and gas industry along with coal.  [It has also geopolitical and strategic implications]. 

Hydrocarbons Under Attack

The immediate target of this financial cartel is the backbone of the world economy, the oil, coal and natural gas sector. Oil industry analysts predict that over the next five years or less investment flows into the world’s largest energy sector will fall dramatically. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” BlackRock’s chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote in his 2021 letter to CEOs. Blackrock is the world’s largest investment group with over $7 trillion to invest. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.”

To continue to attract capital, portfolios have to be built around core advantaged assets – low-cost, long-life, low carbon-intensive barrels,” said Andrew Latham, Vice President, Global Exploration at WoodMac, an energy consultancy.

The Biden Administration is already making good on his pledge to phase out oil and gas by banning new leases in Federal lands and offshore and the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The oil and gas sector and its derivatives such as petrochemicals are at the heart of the world economy. The 50 largest oil and gas companies in the world, including both state-owned and publicly traded companies, recorded revenues of about $5.4 trillion in 2015.

As a new Biden Administration pushes their ideological opposition to so-called fossil fuels, the world will see a precipitous decline in oil and gas investment. The role of the Davos globalists and the ESG financial players are out to guarantee that.

And the losers will be us.

Energy prices will skyrocket as they did during the recent Texas blizzards. The cost of electricity in industrial countries will become prohibitive for manufacturing industry. But rest well. This is all part of the ongoing Great Reset and its new doctrine of ESG investing.

In 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” The WEF Great Reset is not simply a big idea of Klaus Schwab reflecting on the economic devastation of the coronavirus. It has been long planned by the money masters.


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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is by Dennis Schroeder / NREL


Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00


This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

First published by Global Research on November 9, 2020

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, brings together international business and political leaders, economists and other high-profile individuals to discuss global issues. Driven by the vision of its influential CEO Klaus Schwab, the WEF is the main driving force for the dystopian ‘great reset’, a tectonic shift that intends to change how we live, work and interact with each other.

The Great Reset entails a transformation of society resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance as entire sectors are sacrificed to boost the monopoly and hegemony of pharmaceuticals corporations, high-tech/big data giants, Amazon, Google, major global chains, the digital payments sector, biotech concerns, etc.

Using COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions to push through this transformation, the great reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which older enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or absorbed into monopolies, effectively shutting down huge sections of the pre-COVID economy. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs will be carried out by AI-driven machines.

In a short video below, the WEF predicts that by 2030, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” A happy smiling face is depicted while a drone delivers a product to a household, no doubt ordered online and packaged by a robot in a giant Amazon warehouse: ‘no humans were involved in manufacturing, packaging or delivering this product’; rest assured, it is virus- and bacteria-free – because even in 2030, they will need to keep the fear narrative alive and well to maintain full-spectrum dominance over the population.

The jobless (and there will be many) could be placed on some kind of universal basic income and have their debts (indebtedness and bankruptcy on a massive scale is the deliberate result of lockdowns and restrictions) written off in return for handing their assets to the state or more precisely the financial institutions helping to drive this great reset. The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Of course, the tiny elite who rolled out this great reset will own everything.

Hundreds of millions around the world deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ are to be robbed (are currently being robbed) of their livelihoods. Our every movement and purchase are to be monitored and our main dealings will be online.

The plan for individual citizens could reflect the strategy to be applied to nation states. For instance, World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented. This ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

On 20 April, the Wall Street Journal ran the headline ‘IMF, World Bank Face Deluge of Aid Requests From Developing World. Scores of countries are asking for bailouts and loans from financial institutions with $1.2 trillion to lend. An ideal recipe for fuelling dependency.

In return for debt relief or ‘support’, global conglomerates along with the likes of Bill Gates will be able to further dictate national policies and hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty.

Identity and meaning

What will happen to our social and personal identity? Is that to be eradicated in the quest to commodify and standardise human behaviour and everything we do?

The billionaire class who are pushing this agenda think they can own nature and all humans and can control both, whether through geoengineering the atmosphere, for example, genetically modifying soil microbes or doing a better job than nature by producing bio-synthesised fake food in a lab.

They think they can bring history to a close and reinvent the wheel by reshaping what it means to be human. And they think they can achieve this by 2030. It is a cold dystopian vision that wants to eradicate thousands of years of culture, tradition and practices virtually overnight.

And many of those cultures, traditions and practices relate to food and how we produce it and our deep-rooted connections to nature. Consider that many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories and myths that helped them come to terms with some of the most basic issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs. Freyfaxi marks the beginning of the harvest in Norse paganism, for example, while Lammas or Lughnasadh is the celebration of the first harvest/grain harvest in Paganism.

Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.

Prof Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.

We need look no further than India to appreciate the important relationship between culture, agriculture and ecology, not least the vital importance of the monsoon and seasonal planting and harvesting. Rural-based beliefs and rituals steeped in nature persist, even among urban Indians. These are bound to traditional knowledge systems where livelihoods, the seasons, food, cooking, processing, seed exchange, healthcare and the passing on of knowledge are all inter-related and form the essence of cultural diversity within India itself.

Although the industrial age resulted in a diminution of the connection between food and the natural environment as people moved to cities, traditional ‘food cultures’ – the practices, attitudes and beliefs surrounding the production, distribution and consumption of food – still thrive and highlight our ongoing connection to agriculture and nature.

‘Hand of God’ Imperialism

If we go back to the 1950s, it is interesting to note Union Carbide’s corporate narrative based on a series of images that depicted the company as a ‘hand of god’ coming out of the sky to ‘solve’ some of the issues facing humanity. One of the most famous images is of the hand pouring the firm’s agrochemicals on Indian soils as if traditional farming practices were somehow ‘backward’.

Despite well-publicised claims to the contrary, this chemical-driven approach did not lead to higher food production according to the paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’ written by Prof Glenn Stone. However, it has had long-term devastating ecological, social and economic consequences (see Vandana Shiva’s book ‘The Violence of the Green Revolution’ and Bhaskar Save’s now famous and highly insightful open letter to Indian officials).

In the book ‘Food and Cultural Studies’ (Bob Ashley et al), we see how, some years ago, a Coca Cola TV ad campaign sold its product to an audience which associated modernity with a sugary drink and depicted ancient Aboriginal beliefs as harmful, ignorant and outdated. Coke and not rain became the giver of life to the parched. This type of ideology forms part of a wider strategy to discredit traditional cultures and portray them as being deficient and in need of assistance from ‘god-like’ corporations.

What we are seeing in 2020, is an acceleration of such processes. In terms of food and agriculture, traditional farming in places like India will be under increasing pressure from the big-tech giants and agribusiness to open up to lab-grown food, GMOs, genetically engineered soil microbes, data harvesting tools and drones and other ‘disruptive’ technologies.

The great reset includes farmerless farms being manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food. What will happen to the farmers?

Post-COVID, the World Bank talks about helping countries get back on track in return for structural reforms. Are tens of millions of smallholder farmers to be enticed from their land in return for individual debt relief and universal basic income? The displacement of these farmers and the subsequent destruction of rural communities and their cultures was something the Gates Foundation once called for and cynically termed “land mobility”.

Cut through the euphemisms and it is clear that Bill Gates – and the other incredibly rich individuals behind the great reset – is an old-fashioned colonialist who supports the time-honoured dispossessive strategies of imperialism, whether this involves mining, appropriating and commodifying farmer knowledge, accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations or facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.

In places like India – still an agrarian-based society – will the land of these already (prior to COVID) heavily indebted farmers then be handed over to the tech giants, the financial institutions and global agribusiness to churn out their high-tech, data-driven GM industrial sludge? Is this part of the ‘own nothing, be happy’ bland brave new world being promoted by the WEF?

With the link completely severed between food production, nature and culturally embedded beliefs that give meaning and expression to life, we will be left with the individual human who exists on lab-based food, who is reliant on income from the state and who is stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment.

Technocratic meddling has already destroyed or undermined cultural diversity, meaningful social connections and agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security (for example, see ‘Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India’ in the Journal of South Asian Studies). The massive technocratic transformation currently envisaged regards humans as commodities to be controlled and monitored just like the lifeless technological drones and AI being promoted.

But do not worry – you will be property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports, cashlessness, mass vaccination and dehumanisation.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from

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.


Having written posts on this blog for several years now, I have become ever more sensitive to how we, as news consumers, are subject to ideology – the invisible, shifting sands of our belief system.

Those beliefs are not inbuilt, of course. How could they be? We are not born with pre-loaded software like a computer – even if our mental “hardware” may shape what kind of information we are capable of processing and how we process it.

And whatever we may imagine, our belief system is not really self-generated, dictated by life-experiences. It isn’t only real-world events that determine our values and views. Events and experiences are interpreted and given meaning by those beliefs and values. Which is why it is quite possible – common, in fact – for us to hold contradictory beliefs at the same time: like worrying about the threat posed to our children’s future from climate change, while supporting political systems committed to building more roads and runways.

Psychologists have a term for this phenomenon: cognitive dissonance.

Rather, our ideological landscape is socially constructed and largely imposed on us from outside. Ideology frames experiences for us, adding a hidden layer of interpretation that encourages us to make sense of the world in useful ways. The most liberating question one can ask, therefore, is: to whom is any particular ideology useful?

Framing the world 

We inherit much of our ideology from parents and teachers. But ideology is not static. It is adaptive. Our assumptions, beliefs and values subtly change over time. And they change as the needs of the powerful change.

The most powerful among us are powerful precisely because they create the dominant ideology – the thread of narrative that ties together what we imagine to be our personal understanding of why the world is as it is. That is why elites, whether the state or corporations, prioritise capturing the main channels of communication. They make sure to own and control the mass media.

When powerful external actors are framing the world for us – whether it be through broadcasting, newspapers or social media – they get to decide what matters, what should be prioritised, what is right.

That picture is particularly evident in the United States, where six corporations control almost everything the American public hears, sees and thinks – and, via Hollywood, much of what the rest of us think too. Even in the UK, where a trusted public broadcaster, the BBC, dominates much media output, the situation is little different. As the British state itself has been increasingly captured by a corporate elite, the BBC is run on its behalf. Just look at who has been appointed the BBC’s current chairman.

Limiting factors

The role of the corporate media is to subtly alter ideology – the way we see and think about the world – based on the most pressing needs of corporations as they pursue a consistent strategy of increasing profits and accumulating greater wealth. 

The biggest limiting factor on what the media can make us, the public, believe and how quickly we can be made to think new thoughts is not physical reality. It is the risk that too sudden a shift in ideology will create too much cognitive dissonance, to the point where we can no longer sustain our belief system.

The breakdown of an ideological system can manifest at the private level in a range of emotional and mental health states, including anxiety and depression, as well as chronic illness. But that is of little concern to corporate elites. Such “conditions” can be medicated – and to great profit, when we can easily be encouraged to buy drugs for our disease (dis-ease) or to go on shopping sprees to make us “feel” happier.

The real problem is when the breakdown in the dominant belief system is shared widely – becomes collective – and threatens the elites’ continuing grip on power. That path leads to political upheaval and revolution, when facts suddenly appear to be no longer solid but dubious, or even nonsensical, ideological claims.

For hundreds of years, kings ruled Europe’s populations based on a supposed “divine right”. But that claim was no more preposterous than the current belief that our elites run so-called western civilisation based on an “economic right” – that through the survival of the economically fittest, they have risen to the top to guide our societies to a better, more efficient world in which we all ultimately prosper.

Apocalypse insurance 

The insanity of our current economic reality is well illustrated by a new, self-serving ideological movement among the super-rich. Their emotional investment in their right to remain immensely wealthy is naturally much stronger than the investment of the rest of us in their staying rich. Which is one reason billionaires are capable of coping with much greater levels of cognitive dissonance when justifying the continuation of the current economic order.

The greatest ideological challenge facing the super-rich is imminent climate collapse: how to rationalise an economic system designed to satisfy their hunger for profit, and the continuation of their privilege, when it is so obviously causing that collapse.

Some have fled into ridiculous schoolboy fantasies – the billionaires’ equivalent of derangement. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are pouring money – while offsetting it against tax – into the escapism of space colonies, premised on the same technological exploitation and monetisation of nature that have been rapidly making our own planet uninhabitable.

Others are looking in more practical, if equally futile, directions. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, has estimated that half of his fellow billionaires in Silicon Valley have bought what he calls “apocalypse insurance”, investing in safe-haven islands and luxury underground bunkers. Fancifully, they imagine that this will be their life-belt when the planet’s climate system breaks down beyond repair.

Mankind’s ‘misstep’ 

But even these approaches seem reasonable compared to another ideology the super-rich are coalescing around that has been labelled “longtermism”, an off-shoot of the “effective altruism” movement. As ever with language used by the powerful, reality is being inverted. The intention is to deceive – themselves as well as us. There is nothing long term or altruistic about this new cult. It is simply a rebranding of Gordon Gekko’s mantra “Greed is good”, even when that greed has been outed as suicidal.

Faced with a disastrous near-future for which they are supremely responsible, the super-rich wish to telescope our attention into the distant future – thousands and millions of years hence. By focusing on aeons ahead, they can distract from the immediate present. After all, they won’t be around to be blamed for what happens – if anything human is happening – 10 or 20 millennia hence. 

One of their gurus is Nick Bostrom, an Oxford University philosopher, who has contributed an academic gloss to this new religion masquerading as rationalism. He argues that, seen from tens of thousands of years in the future, the looming climate catastrophe won’t seem such a big deal – it will look as important as the crimes of the Roman empire or Genghis Khan appear to us today.

The imminent suffering of millions or even billions of human beings from rising seawaters, wildfires, droughts and food shortages pales when compared to the survival of the few who will reseed the planet and wider universe with conscious life. With the expansion of technologies already under development (by the billionaires), there will be many, many trillions of future biological humans colonising the universe or digital equivalents living in a post-human world.

In Bostrom’s words: “The breakdown of global civilization is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable setback”. Or as he puts it more bluntly, what is coming is “a giant massacre for man, a small misstep for mankind”.

Digital Supermen 

For the billionaire class, this is soothing music to their ears. Altruism is not putting their enormous wealth to the service of fellow human beings or finding a path to a genuinely sustainable future. It is ensuring that a human elite survive the apocalypse: those with the deepest bunkers and the most remote, and elevated, islands. As long as they hoard their wealth to survive the storm, they will be able to continue into a new age in which human “potential” can be fully realised in the long term.

The rationalisation of longtermism amounts to this: If the steerage class is going to drown as the boat sinks, at least they can die happy in the knowledge that the first-class passengers – the greatest innovators and entrepreneurs, the billionaires – are in the lifeboats and ready to build afresh a better future for coming generations.

To think otherwise – to believe that the billionaires are part of the problem and that they must be required to become part of the solution – is small-minded and selfish. It stands in the way of progress. It risks preventing humanity’s survival by dragging everyone down, denying our species the chance of a glorious, technologically enhanced future we can only dream of now.

Bostrom argues too that, when measured against the moral imperative for humanity to unlock its full potential – for its development into a superior breed of Nietzschean digital Supermen – curbs on our current freedoms are justified. That could entail the development of more sophisticated global surveillance systems, greater authoritarianism and, if necessary, preemptive violence. It is hard to see what could not be justified on these grounds to ensure humanity’s “most deserving” survive the apocalypse.

Bostrom even hijacks a key concept of the environmental movement – that the planet’s resources are finite – to make the case for maintaining our current gross inequalities and reifying greed. If there are limited resources, they should not be “frittered away” on “feelgood projects” and philanthropy to save those about to reap the whirlwind of the very economic system – capitalism – that created the billionaire class. That would be to betray the survivors – the super-rich and a few lucky others – who will need those resources to create a new civilisation built on the ruins of the current one.

Billionaire’s burden 

If this all sounds like a reinvention of old-fashioned colonialism with a new twist – the white man’s burden becomes the billionaire’s burden – that is because it springs from exactly the same ideological source.

Stated so bluntly, it may sound patently ridiculous – and dangerous – to those of us who are not super rich. But these ideas are already subtly permeating the wider culture through media narratives.

The long term success of the super rich in gaslighting us can be measured in the fact that billionaires are seen as fulfilling a legitimate, philanthropic role in our societies – so much so that they grow ever richer – rather than parasites leeching the planet of its resources. (Listen out for those so brainwashed that they eagerly rush to the defence of the billionaire class, not only accusing critics of envy but warning us off comparing anyone to parasites.)

During the first 16 months of mass suffering spurred by the pandemic, the world’s 2,690 billionaires increased their fortunes by $5.5 trillion – hoarding more global wealth than they managed in the previous 15 years. And a large part of the reason for their accelerating enrichment is that western politicians and corporate lobbyists – now barely distinguishable – have made sure that the corporate class pays ever less tax. That this in itself has not provoked an uprising is down to our soma-fication by the corporate media.

But the indulgence of the super rich runs deeper, and is only made starker, by the report this week of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It warns that the effects of the manmade “climate crisis” on temperature rises and more extreme weather events are now “irreversible”, and that urgent action is needed to stop runaway overheating of the planet.

The billionaires own the media. So one can hardly be surprised that the IPCC’s warning that we are standing on the edge of a precipice writing our species’ suicide note rated second billing in many papers, while others frantically grasped for silver linings or attention-grabbing but mind-numbing “Code Red” headlines worthy of a Thomas Harris thriller.

And, of course, even the IPCC avoided pointing the finger directly at the corporations and their obfuscating media for our dismal plight. It was a generalised, faceless “humanity” that was guilty: “Humanity, through its actions, or lack of action, has unequivocally overheated the planet.” That might come as a surprise to the Kalahari bushmen, or Aboriginal elders in Australia or many Bedouin tribes across the Middle East. Are they really as guilty as Bezos or Musk?

‘Astronaut’ consumers 

The IPCC’s latest report received a more sympathetic assessment than the similar findings it produced in 2013, when much of the media felt the need to “balance” that report with counter-claims from climate “sceptics”. But that doubtless reflects the fact that the super rich are now far better positioned to profit from popular concerns about “climate change”. The billionaires have been investing in what they have persuaded us are green, planet-saving technologies. They have diversified their portfolios to monetise our fears. We are being persuaded that we can consume (more ethically) our way out of this “crisis”.

The signs that the IPCC’s deeper message is not getting through the media obfuscation are clear.

No one abhors Richard Branson and his rich “astronaut” customers for frittering away many millions on a few seconds in space when the oceans are choked with plastics, the insects are disappearing and burning forests are not storing but pouring carbon into the atmosphere.

Instead, the BBC reports uncritically Branson’s fairy-dust, ecological justification for the massive waste of resources – and addition of even more carbon to the atmosphere – jetting the wealthy into space:

Why shouldn’t they go to space? Space is extraordinary; the Universe is magnificent. I want people to be able to look back at our beautiful Earth and come home and work very hard to try to do magic to it to look after it.

Similarly, Bezos’ endless chatter about colonising space is treated seriously rather than greeted with the only rational response: revulsion. Both because Bezos is diverting attention away from a real-world crisis with a preposterous fantasy that, if he and his fellow billionaires get their way, no one will be around to benefit from; and because his ideas of space colonisation are either evidence of his desire to off-shore the rest of us into cylinders floating in space to become the human equivalent of battery chickens or, if his ambition is more limited, so that he and his retinue can flee the very planet he has played a key role in destroying.

Lightbulbs and cycling

But there are other ways the discourse around climate breakdown is being gradually manipulated to assist the super rich. 

Over decades, the media’s interest in addressing climate breakdown has hewn closely to the corporate elite’s interest in it. First, the science – evident more than half a century ago, even to the fossil fuel companies – was ignored because it would be bad for business. Then, through the 2000s, environmental concern became a niche interest among more liberal media, which promoted cycling to work and energy-efficient lightbulbs to save the polar bears – actions that were the individual consumer’s responsibility. At the same time, the benefits of climate change were played up: warmer summers in temperate countries like the UK would mean new opportunities for growing wines and the staycation economy.

The corporate elites bought themselves time as their media arms ostentatiously disagreed over the seriousness of climate change and offered, at best, coverage that framed it as some distant crisis our grandchildren would have to deal with. By the time a stream of extreme weather events arrived in the here and now, and could no longer be dismissed as aberrations, the billionaires were ready. They had reinvented themselves as guardians of the future, having diversified into supposedly green technologies – technologies designed to continue and expand our planet-destroying consumerism rather than curb it.

Even some of the preferred responses of western states to the pandemic – socially distanced living, increasingly as digital beings online, combined with surveillance capitalism and increased powers for the police – disturbingly foreshadow the “longtermist” fantasies of the super rich. It is not simply conspiracy thinking to be wary of where ideological adaption may take us, especially when corporations control our means of communication and have the power to impose consensus by silencing anyone, even experts, who challenge the dominant ideology that serves the interests of the super rich. 

The public discourse echoes the thinking of the billionaires in other ways. We have rushed headlong past the stage of a proper reckoning with the causes of the unfolding climate catastrophe to the global equivalent of the children’s game of musical chairs. If the super rich are pondering where to build their bunkers, and which islands to buy or planets to colonise, to escape the coming collapse, we are being conditioned to think in similarly deranged, if cut-price, terms. New studies are assessing the countries best placed to ride out climate catastrophe. The winners apparently will be New Zealand, Iceland, the UK, Ireland and Tasmania. 

Four years ago the supposedly liberal Independent newspaper offered, with a straight face, an eco-porn travelogue article suggesting “25 places you should visit before they vanish from the face of the Earth”. Now, just a few years later, we are playing the reverse game: where can we hunker down most safely as the world vanishes? This is cognitive dissonance in over-drive.

Even when climate change is addressed in the so-called “liberal” corporate media, the language used corrupts our ability to think. We are told we must go on a “war footing” to deal with the crisis. Positive comparisons are made with the emergency response to the pandemic, as though the resource-depleting and polluting production of endless, disposable masks and plastic tubes for lateral flow-testing, and a new obsession with hygiene, offer some kind of model for a green revolution. And even the Green New Deal is promoted in terms of Roosevelt’s consumption-driven New Deal of the 1930s.

The reality is that we can save our species – assuming it can be saved at all at this late stage – only by radically transforming our societies: by ending inequality, by criminalising greed, by dispossessing billionaires, by nationalising corporations, by making economies and political systems far more localised, by introducing real democratic accountability, by abolishing the corporate media, by funding critical thinking in our education system, and much else.

These are the minimal and urgent preconditions for our species to adapt to a future in which we do not experience runaway global heating. And yet they are voiced nowhere in our political or media discourses. And for that we have the billionaires, and their bunker and space colony fantasies, to thank.


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

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Where Best to Ride Out the Climate Apocalypse? The Billionaires’ Bunker Fantasies Go Mainstream
  • 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.


Why are numerous ‘independent alternative’ media outlets and writers not questioning the COVID-19 vaccine rollout? If anything, they are promoting it without even considering the serious concerns being voiced by top scientists.

When there are experts like cardiologist and epidemiologist Professor Peter McCullough, Dr Robert Malone (credited with inventing mRNA vaccine technology), former vice president of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Dr Michael Yeadon, vaccine researcher and immunologist Dr Byram Bridle, world-renowned microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakti and hundreds of other respected scientists, immunologists and virologists expressing serious concerns or even calling for a halt to the rollout, surely their views must be given space.

However, from the outset, these self-proclaimed ‘anti-establishment’ platforms and journalists threw their hand in with the official COVID-19 narrative. They are now supporting the vaccine rollouts and by implication the entities pushing the vaccines – governments, mainstream media, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, Big Pharma and Silicon Valley and its bedfellow, the US military.

In effect, the full weight of the establishment has been brought to bear on pushing the COVID narrative and the vaccines. The very establishment that these ‘independent’ media outlets have previously challenged over the devastating ‘humanitarian’ conflicts in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

To show such contempt for human life (civilian ‘collateral damage’) via geopolitical and resource-grabbing wars sold under the thin veneer of ‘the war on terror’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’ but then feel a need to save humanity from the ‘deadly’ virus must make some of those supporters of the official line on COVID just a little suspicious of the motives.

As critical care physician Dr Pascal Sacré recently wrote:

“If people want trustworthy rulers, honest politicians, they should always judge rulers, financial elites and politicians by their actions rather than by their words.”

By not giving space to top scientists in the field of vaccine technology, immunology or virology who express deep concerns, these outlets are in fact engaging in censorship as much as the mainstream media, Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube.

Science involves open debate and transparency, not censorship.

Same old playbook

There are strong similarities between the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agriculture and the COVID ‘pandemic’ in terms of the framing of debates in both fields: a type of ‘the science is decided’ mentality and a smearing of critics in an attempt to demonise and close down debate.

Some years ago, Robert T Fraley, Monsanto’s former vice president and chief technology officer, asked on Twitter: “Why do people doubt science?”

Accompanying his question was a link to an article that implied people who are suspicious of vaccines, GMOs, climate change or fluoridated water are confused, adhere to conspiracy theories, are motivated by ideology or are simply misinformed.

But science is not the giver of ‘absolute truth’. That in itself should allow us to develop a healthy scepticism towards it. Scientific knowledge is built on shaky stilts that rest on shifting foundations. Science historian Thomas Kuhn wrote about the revolutionary paradigm shifts in scientific thought, whereby established theoretical perspectives can reinforce prevailing paradigms and serve as a barrier to the advancement of knowledge, until the weight of evidence and pressure from proponents of a new theoretical outlook is overwhelming. The old faith then gives way and the new ‘truth’ changes.

The manufacture of scientific knowledge involves a process driven by various sociological, methodological and epistemological conflicts and compromises, both inside the laboratory and beyond.

Why do people doubt science? Not because they are ill-informed or have read Kuhn or some sociology journal, but because they can see how science is used, corrupted and manipulated by powerful corporations and governments to serve their own ends.

Take US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, for instance. He once called for “sound science” to underpin food trade that involves GMOs. Despite what Vilsack would have us believe – that there are no concerns about GMOs – many studies show that they present risks to human health and are having serious environmental, social and economic consequences.

Sound science and the GMO agritech sector are too often perfect strangers. The industry carries out inadequate, short-term studies and conceals the data produced by its research under the guise of ‘commercial confidentiality’, while independent research highlights the dangers of its products. It has in the past also engaged in fakery in India, bribery in Indonesia and smears and intimidation against those who challenge its interests as well as the distortion and the censorship of scientific findings that undermine its agenda.

In the US, policy makers released GM food onto the commercial market without proper long-term tests, citing the belief that it is ‘substantially equivalent’ to ordinary food. But foreign genes are being inserted into organisms that studies show make them substantially non-equivalent. Substantial equivalence is a trade strategy on behalf of the GMO sector that neatly serves to bypass science by removing its GMOs from the type of scrutiny usually applied to potentially toxic or harmful substances.

Ultimately, it is not science itself that people have doubts about but science that is pressed into the service of immensely powerful private corporations and regulatory bodies that are effectively co-opted and adopt a ‘don’t look, don’t find approach’ to studies and products.

There is a tendency to label anyone who opposes GMO as anti-science, not least because they are arguing against a supposed ‘scientific consensus’ in favour of GMOs. But this ‘consensus’ is nothing but a fiction of the collective imagination of the pro-GMO lobby.

The first rule of risk-taking is to not cross the street blindfolded, which is what the GMO and COVID-19 vaccine lobbies would like us all to do, even though there are serious risks associated with these technologies. Furthermore, based on the work of US lawyer Steven Druker, we can see that the processes involved in getting GMO crop technology onto the commercial market were fraudulent and there has not been a single independent long-term epidemiological study on GMOs. With clinical trials still ongoing, similar concerns dog the ‘emergency use authorisation’ experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

The ‘technological salvation’ argument being put forward in favour of the vaccines is also present with GMOs: the technology is needed to ‘feed the hungry’ or ‘save dying children’. When an argument cannot be won using rational debate and science, we usually see the emotional blackmail fallback position and ad hominins against critics.

Whether it is GMO crop technology or COVID vaccines, we are seeing a huge unscientific experiment using people as human guinea pigs to rake in massive profits. In the case of the vaccines, there is also a wider agenda involving a ‘great reset’ of the economy and labour’s relationship to an increasingly authoritarian state whose role is to produce the conditions that will subordinate ordinary people to the ‘new normal’ required by private capital: mass surveillance, worklessness and the eradication of civil and political rights in favour of technocratic rule. In fact, genetically engineered food and crops are an integral part of this reset.

Part of the vaccine rollout involves accusing critics and the unvaccinated of being irresponsible and dangerous fearmongers. There is a huge government-media campaign to marginalise and demonise those who question the vaccines or refuse to take them due to valid concerns.

Instead of indulging in smear campaigns and censorship, what society should be facilitating is open debate and taking very seriously what critics are saying. When people engage in the former and run from the latter, it indicates that their arguments will not and do not withstand scrutiny.

Vaccine billionaires

In finishing, let us return to the world of Robert T Fraley and Monsanto and the type of ‘science’ he pushes. Bayer, which took over Monsanto in 2018, has just lost another appeals court decision in the US regarding its glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, often used with GMO ‘roundup ready’ seeds and thus a key component of the GMO agenda. It faces tens of thousands of claims alleging that this herbicide causes cancer.

In a recent decision by a court of appeal in California, it was stated:

“Monsanto’s conduct evidenced reckless disregard of the health and safety of the multitude of unsuspecting consumers it kept in the dark. This was not an isolated incident; Monsanto’s conduct involved repeated actions over a period of many years motivated by the desire for sales and profit.”

There is a clear lesson here with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Unlike Monsanto, however, Pfizer and the other vaccine manufacturers have received indemnities against the costs of compensation for adverse effects that might come from their COVID vaccines.

A shrewd business move considering Pfizer’s corporate rap sheet which does nothing to inspire trust in that company. Its track record includes product safety, pricing, advertising and marketing, environment, human rights, labour, worker safety and tax and subsidy crimes and scandals.

It is also claimed by the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism that Pfizer bullied governments to put up federal bank reserves, embassy buildings or military bases as a guarantee against the cost of future legal cases stemming from the adverse effects of its COVID-19 vaccine. This would mean that governments rather than the company would shoulder any legal costs.

Vaccine manufacturers might well face bankruptcy sooner rather than later given the rising numbers of deaths and serious adverse effects being reported. But shielded from liability, the new vaccine billionaires, among them Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech, which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer, will be able to hold onto their loot.

Although nothing will bring back those who succumbed to the deadly effects of glyphosate, at least Monsanto (via Bayer) is now in the dock and has already been forced to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to its victims or their families.

Through these legal cases involving glyphosate, it has been made clear just how powerful corporations can and do corrupt science for their own ends.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, one of the attorney’s fighting Bayer-Monsanto in the US courts, has explained that for four decades Monsanto manoeuvred to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity.

He also says that Monsanto faces cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.

This is what smearing and ignoring critics, malfeasance in public office, the capturing of regulatory agencies and scientific fraud leads to.

It is interesting that governments and public officials sat on their hands and facilitated the rollout of glyphosate and other toxic agrochemicals and watched what is now a major public health crisis spiral out of control. They prioritised the needs of the agrochemical sector ahead of public health and side-lined science that challenged the adverse effects of its products.

But governments are now suddenly expressing great concern for everyone’s well-being by locking them down, waging a fear campaign and cajoling and bribing people to take risky vaccines with dubious efficacy and which are arguably not needed. So, whose needs are they prioritising this time around?

Although we are still in the relative early days of the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts, disturbing evidence is mounting of the actual harm resulting from these poorly tested vaccines and the potential risks (infertility, cognitive, cancer, cardiovascular, etc) that lie in store. Dr J Patrick Whelan, a paediatric rheumatologist, warned the US Food and Drug Administration in late 2020 that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.

This is deeply concerning.

But not for some. Not least the nine new vaccine billionaires worth a combined $19.3 billion courtesy of COVID-19 vaccines that were largely funded with billions of dollars from the public purse.


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 is an independent writer and analyst specialising in development, food and agriculture based in Europe/India. 

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.


On 15 July, residents of Faroush Beit Dajan in the northern Jordan Valley woke up to a horrifying reality: the Israeli army had raided the village and demolished a seven-year-old water cistern that supplied water to their farms.

The demolition was part of an Israeli army campaign over the summer to destroy water sources that Palestinians had established in the Jordan valley, including water cisterns, ponds, wells for collecting water, and irrigation networks.

As a result of the destruction, some 85 Palestinian families have been struggling to find water to feed their summer crops, which extend over 480 dunams (48 hectares) of land.

Many residents believe that the army, by targeting their water supply, had a larger objective, which was to pressure them into leaving the area.

“The [Israeli] occupation specifically targets the infrastructure of Palestinian agriculture, which 99 percent of the village residents depend on for their livelihoods,” Azem Hajj Mohammad, head of the village local council, told Middle East Eye (MEE).

“That is why it constantly demolishes water tanks, irrigation networks, water lines, and seizes springs and water sources, with the aim of displacing Palestinians and replacing them with Israelis.”

Such a policy is defined by rights groups as creating a “coercive environment” that could lead to forcible transfer, a war crime under international law.

‘Unlawful demolition’

According to Hajj Mohammad, the army demolished the cistern while a case was still being heard in the courts and before a final decision had been issued.

Seven years ago, during the construction of the water cistern, the Israeli occupation army presented the villagers with a stop-work order, but the families went to the Israeli high court, which issued a precautionary decision not to demolish, he said.

The cistern had a capacity of 500 cubic metres, which would supply their 48 hectares of crops.

Over time, residents began to rely increasingly on the water cistern after the village lost its main water source, the Fara’a irrigation project, which had collected water from the Ain Shibli and Ain Miska springs as well as other small springs in the area.

“We lost this source of water due to the repeated Israeli violations, including withdrawing huge amounts of water from the area and drilling deep wells, leading to a decline in the quantity of water we could depend on,” said Hajj Mohammad.

Differential treatment for settlers

In the area of Ain al-Hilweh, in the northern Jordan Valley, locals say they have learned to live with the violations perpetrated by the settlers.

Farmer Fathi Alayan Daraghmeh told MEE that since March he has been unable to take his livestock to drink at the spring, which lies 1km from his home.

Instead, he began purchasing water daily, both for his family’s domestic use and for his cattle.

“I face the settlers on my own on a daily basis, and I try to retrieve the water from them. I face death threats, but I never pay any mind to them,” Fathi said.

“Either I go on with my life, preserving my dignity and my family, or I die while working to regain our dignity and our right to live on our lands.”

In late July, and after Palestinian protests against their repeated attempts to disrupt water supplies, Israeli settlers forcefully took over the main water spring there and turned it into a swimming pool.

Fathi accuses the Palestinian Authority (PA) of not doing enough for the occupied Jordan Valley, especially Ain al-Hilweh, which he said had led to the settlers’ takeover of the main water supply.

“We sent many appeals to the PA and asked them to strengthen the Palestinian presence in the region by sending delegations and directing Palestinian trips to the spring, but there was no response to our calls,” he said.

Fathi owns a farm rearing about 500 cows, and he has been directly dependent on the spring for his livestock since his family settled in the area more than 50 years ago.

“[Israeli authorities] confined us in our livestock grazing areas and are now preventing our livestock from grazing there. In contrast, they make it easier for settlers to set up farms in the area and also build the necessary infrastructure for them,” he told MEE.

He is now forced to spend 200-Israeli-new-shekel ($62) to purchase a water tank every four days for his family, while his livestock needs $6,215 worth of water per month, which is an exorbitant amount for him as a farmer.

“We transport water secretly, and then face checks by the Israeli police, who impose fines on us for doing so. They also confiscate our water tanks and the tractors that are used to transport the water.

“They are trying to restrict us by all means.”

Samer Sawafta, a farmer from the village of Bardala, says he built a 500-cubic-metre pond to gather water during the winter months to water his three-hectare plot of vegetable crops.

“The water pond was the only option that would enable us to continue cultivating our farm,” Sawafta told MEE. “We suffer greatly from being denied access to water. Today we are going through a disaster, and our lives can no longer be tolerated, due to non-stop Israeli aggressions.

“We, as Palestinian farmers, cannot withstand these Israeli attacks any longer. We need someone to stand with us and compensate us for what we lose on a daily basis,” he added.

According to Fathi, the situation in the Jordan Valley is worsening due to the Israeli occupation’s policies, all related to settlement expansion and strengthening the army’s presence in the strategic area.

Palestinian farmers no longer know whether they can withstand these measures, which are taking away their most basic rights, he said.

“In reality, we are in the process of completely losing the Jordan Valley. We must confront this cancer, which is spreading in a wide and deep manner, but we cannot do it alone as farmers; we need a force that will stand with us and defend our lands with us,” Fathi told MEE.

Oslo Accords restrictions

Moayad Bisharat, director of programmes and projects at the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, told MEE that Israeli occupation authorities have demolished 15 Palestinian water pools since the start of the summer, in addition to destroying 2-3km of water lines.

“This year we are witnessing a large escalation in the Israeli targeting of the water sector, in contrast to previous years, when attacks were concentrated on Palestinian communities,” said Bisharat.

He said that the main water problem in the Jordan Valley for the Palestinians was that the Israeli authorities were preventing residents from digging deeper wells, causing the existing shallow wells to have high salinity.

According to the Oslo Accords, Palestinians are prevented from digging wells, or even rehabilitating and repairing them, or deepening them, while Israeli authorities have control over 87% of the water resources, managed by the Israeli company Mekorot.

The Oslo Accords not only deprive Palestinians of exploiting their own groundwater, but also surface water, Bisharat said.

While water runs through dozens of valleys in the winter, the Israeli occupation prevents Palestinians from collecting and benefiting from it.

He added that many springs have dried up after settlers dug deep wells around them. The primary example is the al-Auja spring, which once produced about 3-6 million cubic meters annually, and was used by farmers to irrigate about 600 hectares in the area of Al-Auja.

Settlers built three wells around the spring in the 1990s, which led to it drying up and the desertification of large parts of the area.

To gain full control over water resources in the Jordan Valley, the Israeli occupation is now resorting to persecuting farmers when they break the rules and transport water to their communities and farms, according to Bisharat.

This, he said, indicates a continuous intent to displace Palestinians from the Jordan Valley.


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 PressTV

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestinians Fight for Right to Water, Survival in Jordan Valley
  • 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.


The United States lost the Afghanistan War a long time ago, as is quickly becoming apparent as the Taliban take city after city.

After 2002, it was never clear what the US war aim was. You can’t win a war if you don’t have a clear objective. The war is lost before it begins.

The initial US military action against the Taliban government of Mulla Omar in fall, 2001, was based on the refusal of Kabul to hand over Usama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks. There is no reason to believe that the Taliban leadership was aware of what al-Qaeda was planning. The Taliban are Pushtuns, al-Qaeda was Arab expatriates. Pushtuns were known to get sick and tired of the Arabs lording it over them and occasionally to stick a shiv between their ribs on the march.

Al-Qaeda was not, however, just a “guest” of the Taliban. It was their 55th Brigade. The al-Qaeda fighters were the best in the country and were the only ones who could take on the Northern Alliance remnants in the country’s northeast with any success. Mulla Omar would never have turned them over to the US. For one thing, he needed them at the home front. But not only the Taliban but many in al-Qaeda felt deeply betrayed by Bin Laden’s use of their hospitality to stage a brazen attack on a superpower, bringing the full weight of the international community down on them.

The US gave the Northern Alliance (fundamentalist Sunni Tajiks, Shiite Hazaras and secular Uzbeks) air support, and enabled them to roll up the Taliban in city after city by taking out the few military vehicles the Taliban had. All the forces were poorly equipped. The Northern Alliance forces took Mazar-i Sharif on horseback, with US special operations guys in tow, painting lasers on Taliban targets for the airstrikes. Some of the spec ops guys didn’t know how to post when riding and boy were they sore the next day.

The Northern Alliance were fighting for their lives, and they defeated the Taliban in the field. The Taliban are genocidal toward Shiite Hazaras, some 22 percent of the population, clustered in the center of the country. The Persian-speaking Tajiks, their Islam inflected with Sufism or Muslim mysticism, deeply feared the Taliban and their Saudi-influenced ideology. Many Uzbeks, influenced by the industrialization in the north and the proximity to the former Soviet Union, were urbane and relatively secular-minded, and hated the hyper-fundamentalism of the Pushtun Taliban.

By spring of 2002, the Taliban were roundly defeated. Opinion polls showed that their favorability rating was good only among 5 percent of the population.

George W. Bush, who spearheaded the invasion, was never very interested in Afghanistan, though maybe he saw that old Gary Cooper film “The Lives of a Bengal Lancer” on TV, because he once spoke of the “romance” of the fighting in Afghanistan. As long as I live, I’ll never get over W.

He gave a brave speech about nation-building and spending all this money in Afghanistan. The vast majority of the money the US spent on that country in the subsequent 20 years was to pay for the bombs they dropped on it. The money spent on building the place up was tiny in comparison. And much of it was lost to corruption.

By spring of 2002, congressmen visiting Centcom head Tommy Franks were bluntly told that Afghanistan was no longer the mission, and the Bush crime gang had clearly decided to set up Iraq as a fall guy for 9/11 and break the country’s legs.

The US in 2002-2003 had a good outcome in Afghanistan. We should just have left then. I can’t imagine why we didn’t. I think then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to surround Russia so it couldn’t reemerge as a peer power. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

The US lost Afghanistan in part by trying to occupy it militarily. In 2005 US troops used flamethrowers to burn poppy crops of Afghan farmers, who had nothing else to live on. One in 7 as a result had to sell a daughter. I doubt they have forgiven the US.

If you occupy a country, you have to suppress insurgents. Insurgents come from towns and villages and have friends and relatives there. When insurgents hit a US outpost, the US troops had to go into the nearby village and shake it down, looking for the guerrillas. They’d go into Afghan homes at night, with the women folk rustled from their sleep and standing there bare-faced and in their bed clothes before 18-year-old strangers from Alabama and South Carolina. After a thing like that, the men of the family would have had at least to try to kill some Americans. Search and destroy missions gradually turned people against the US, just as had happened in Vietnam.

One US officer who had served in Afghanistan got upset with me for saying this, insisting that the troops always brought along a local in these home invasions. I suspect some of these “locals” were Hazara Shiites or Tajiks, standing there in Pushtun homes with the Americans. That if anything would have made it worse. Only 2 percent of the Afghanistan National Army stood up by the US was from the southern Pushtun provinces.

The Afghanistan National Army had trouble keeping recruits. There was extremely high turnover as soldiers deserted after a few months. Many of those who remained had poor morale and allegedly smoked a lot of pot. The US was sometimes not very serious about training them. It farmed out rifle practice to a private firm that could not improve their accuracy when firing US rifles. It turns out that you have to use the sight, and the firm wasn’t teaching the troops that.

The central government stood up by the US was corrupt on a galactic scale. Freighter airplanes full of US dollars in hard cash regularly took off for Dubai from Kabul International Airport. The new Afghan elite fleeced the people and bought fancy islands around Dubai with the money, even embezzling from the Da Kabul Bank. In 2008 the island resorts became worthless and Da Kabul Bank collapsed, leaving people in long lines before its branches seeking to recover their life savings. They did not.

The new elite in Kabul was weighted toward Tajiks, many of whom had close ties to India and Indian intelligence (which had supported them in the lean years of Taliban rule). This development was absolutely unacceptable to the black cells of nationalist or Muslim fundamentalist officers in the Pakistani Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence, who took revenge by backing a Taliban resurgence. Pakistan and India have fought 3 wars and a smaller border skirmish, and Pakistan is a much smaller country with fewer allies. Islamabad feels it cannot afford to have a government in Kabul that tilts to New Delhi, lest Pakistan be surrounded.

US officials sent out to Afghanistan knew that it was a Washington Ponzi scheme. Billions were disappearing into the pockets of contractors and warlords. Only the arms manufacturers were happy. The US was massively bombing the country every year, the only reason that it was still able to be there. US officials confessed as much to government watchdogs, and the Washington Post managed to get those interviews and publish them in 2019. Nobody believed in the mission. There was no mission. There was a morass of corruption and incompetence. Many of the regional warlords under the new government were not easier on women or minorities than the Taliban had been, and were fundamentalists of a different stripe.

Joe Biden knew all this. He is the consummate insider. He was the one who decided to blow the whistle on the Ponzi scheme. Of course, when such a scheme is revealed, a lot of institutions collapse and a lot of people get hurt. But actually the institutions were already in collapse, they just didn’t know it, and the people had already lost all their investments, they just hadn’t yet come to that realization.

The Northern Alliance in fall of 2001 defeated the Taliban with US air support, because they had esprit de corps and were fighting for what they believed in. The Afghanistan National Army seems to be unwilling to fight in the same way, presumably because they don’t ultimately want to risk their lives for their government. It is a sad, tragic development, and many urban people and women and minorities will suffer. But once a Ponzi schemer has already stolen all the money, it is not possible to keep up the pretense of normality forever.


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: A U.S. Army Soldier from the A Company, 1-503rd Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, conducts a patrol with a platoon of Afghan national army soldiers to check on conditions in the village of Yawez, Wardak province, Afghanistan, Feb. 17, 2010. Partnership between the U.S. Army and the Afghan national army is proving to be a valuable tool in bringing security to the area. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Russell GilchrestReleased)

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 year marks a seminal turning point in human history. For the first time since human civilization began, our species is being genetically modified. Vaccine manufacturers have now made it possible for the human genome to be permanently altered—and humanity’s relationship with nature forever changed—by means of an experimental pharmaceutical injection that is being falsely referred to as a “vaccine.”

In light of this defining event, I believe we must take a sober look at the motives and acts that are revamping humanity as we know it. Simultaneously, we must examine our increasingly destructive treatment of the natural world. 

In order to investigate the many variables that are hastening the demise of humanity and sabotaging our unique role as stewards of the earth and its billions of plant and animal species, I have divided this study into four main parts, which will appear as separate articles: 

In Part I: The Microbiome and The Virome, we will discover that we are literally swimming in a vast sea of genomic information that was essential for life to begin and flourish on this precious earth and that is still trying to help all species survive. The matrix of organisms that make up the microbiome have built a viromic information stream that has allowed for adaptation and biodiversity to occur on the planet. And that very same viromic information stream is responsible for building the human species.

In Part lI: Our War Against Nature, we will explore how our own reckless behaviour is destroying the environment, thereby moving us toward the sixth mass extinction. By that I mean, I will be covering the real environmental catastrophe, not the billionaire-funded “global warming/climate change” hoax initiated by the Club of Rome and further promulgated by the World Economic Forum (WEF). 

In Part III: What Happened in 2020, we will examine how this real environmental devastation has contributed to the “pandemic” that was rolled out in 2020, that led to the mass experimental injections of unknown substances into human “subjects” in 2021, and that has no foreseeable end. (I put “pandemic” in quotes because of its fraudulent character. Indeed, it is more accurately and aptly described as a plandemic, a scamdemic, a pseudo pandemic or any other term indicating fakery.)  

In Part IV: Our Response, we will analyze the irresponsible and irrational response of most people on the planet to this so-called pandemic. 

Parts II, III and IV will be published later by Global Research.

The Microbiome  

The microbiome (derived from the Greek words micro, meaning “small,” and biotikos, meaning “pertaining to life”) is a massive ecosystem consisting of trillions of microorganisms. Incredibly, some 40,000 species of bacteria, 300,000 species of parasites, 65,000 species of protozoa, and between 3.5 million and 5 million species of fungi inhabit the environment around us and live in or on the human body. This complex world of microorganisms continually secretes a sea of viruses, which serve as a communication network for the bacteria, parasites, protozoa, and fungi. And, as we will discover shortly, these viruses have always been here to help us, not hinder us. In other words, they are life-affirming, not death-inducing.

Here’s a hint of the microbiome’s intricacy, incredible diversity, and infinitesimal size: The number of genes within the fungal kingdom is at least 125 trillion! The human genome, by comparison, consists of a mere 20,000 genes. A fruit fly has 13,000 genes, a flea 31,000. Thus, in terms of genetic complexity, the human genome has just a tiny fragment of genetic information compared to the vast world of genomic information contained within the microbiome. 

One fascinating aspect of the microbiome is its symbiotic communication network, which allows the transmission of protein information from one microorganism to one another. For example, the mycelial network (a matrix of fine white filaments) in fungi allows the fungi to communicate with each other over distances that can stretch to several kilometers. These mycelial structures are capable of transferring mineral and protein resources more than a kilometer. How? They use light energy and electrons that flow through the pathways within the soil system. In this way, the microbiome helps plants and other multicellular life forms flourish. It is no exaggeration to call the mycelial network in the fungal kingdom the literal “brain” of the planet. Incidentally, all of the tiny, intelligent organisms that make up the microbiome are powered by the biophotonic energy of the sun.

Hard as it is to fathom, at least 1.4 quadrillion bacteria and 10 quadrillion fungi live inside the human body. Within the human colon alone are 3.8 x 1013bacteria cells. Every single organ in the body, including the brain, has its own microbiome. The purpose of the bacteria and fungi in our bodies is to nourish and nurture our cells, keeping us healthy and in equilibrium with the larger microbiome surrounding us. 

The Virome

The virome is the immense world in which Mother Nature’s messengers exist. It is composed of trillions upon trillions of viruses produced by the aforementioned microbiome’s bacteria, parasites, protozoa, and fungi.

The average adult human body contains 1 x 1015 viruses. By contrast, in the air enveloping the earth there are 1 x 1031viruses; in the earth’s soil there are 2.5 x 1031 viruses; and in the earth’s oceans there are 1.2 x 1030viruses. To provide some perspective on these awe-inspiring numbers, 1 x 1031is 10 million times greater than the number of known stars in the entire universe.

Simply put, a virus is genomic information, either DNA or RNA, wrapped in a protein envelope. The small strands of protein protruding outward from the outer surface of a virus’s protein envelope are called spike proteins. Viruses are not living organisms. They do not produce their own fuel. They have no metabolism for producing energy. And they cannot reproduce. 

Viruses have been traveling globally, above the atmospheric boundary layer, for millions of years, long before machines for air travel were invented. Their genetic codes have been blanketing the earth for eons, creating biodiversity and allowing for adaptation throughout the ecosystem. By adaptation, I mean that viruses are always seeking to adapt their genetic codes for the purpose of creating resilient health in all of the planet’s life forms. It is ridiculous to suggest that, in order to travel from one region of the globe to another, a virus must hop on an aircraft, as RAND’s National Security Research Division would have us believe. 

Furthermore, viruses—including coronaviruses—do not come in waves and then disappear without a trace, only to miraculously reappear later in the same spot or a different one. Instead, viruses never leave, never expire. They inhabit every element in the environment around us. In short, they are omnipresent and ever-present.

Our relationship with particular viruses can change as a consequence of our harmful actions toward nature. Whenever humans poison and pollute the air, soil, and water, they create an imbalance between humanity and the virome—an imbalance that can cause us to come into disequilibrium with a particular virus.

Unfortunately, the allopathic medicine regime, which plutocrats John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie forced on most of the world with their 1910 Flexner Report, still has a large segment of the scientific community believing that bacteria, fungi, and viruses are our enemy.

The foundation of Rockefeller’s allopathic medicine scheme is Louis Pasteur’s flawed “germ theory,” which claims that outside microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses attack, invade, and infect the body, thereby causing disease.

Most of the Western world credits Pasteur (1822–1895) with playing a fundamental part in establishing what we call “modern medicine”—a paradigm that traces the origin of each disease to a single germ.

Without Pasteur’s theory, most modern drugs would never be produced, promoted, or prescribed—a fact that explains why today’s medical establishment and its codependent pharmaceutical industry refuse to recognise their flaws or own up to their ineffectiveness. 

By contrast, “terrain theory,” which was initiated by Claude Bernard (1813–1878) and later built upon by Antoine Béchamp (1816–1908), alleges that the terrain—that is, the internal environment of the body—and not an external germ determines our health or lack thereof. What Béchamp referred to as “terrain” is very close to what modern medicine has now termed the innate immune system. As we will see in the following paragraphs, Béchamp was definitely on the right track in discovering how the human body really interacts with the outside environment.

Unlike Pasteur, Béchamp did have an academic background in science. He believed disease to be a biological result of the changes that take place in the body when its metabolic processes become imbalanced. When the body is in a state of imbalance, Béchamp alleged, germs become symptoms that in turn stimulate more symptoms, which eventually lead to disease. 

Although Béchamp was moving in the right direction with his terrain theory, Rockefeller’s germ-dependent pharmaceutical tyranny has prevailed, due largely to substantial infusions of money, which Rockefeller and Carnegie gladly supplied in the form of grants to universities, hospitals, and medical research facilities. Their philanthropic largess, which easily exceeded $100 million, enabled them to influence the policy of the entire US medical establishment and eventually most of the Western nations, steering them toward an exclusively chemical-based allopathic regime.   

I contend in this article that, contrary to what Rockefeller medicine has been teaching us for over one hundred years, viruses are not here to attack our cells or to harm us in any other manner. On the contrary, the DNA and RNA genetic molecular information contained within the viruses are literally the building blocks of life on earth. To use a modern analogy, we can think of a virus’s information stream as a software update carrying important molecular intelligence that can be uploaded, when required, to any cell of a living multicellular organism—including any one of the 70 trillion cells contained in the human body. Our cells regulate which new genomic information is received and which information is not received. The viruses are simply seeking to adapt to the cells for the purpose of creating resilient human health.

A word here about the immune system. There are two kinds of immunity: innate and adaptive. 

The innate immune system is the initial and primary means by which our bodies interact with a virus. The innate system helps the body find a genetic balance with each new viral update that is being presented to it. The body does not need to replicate or reproduce the new viral information after more than 4 or 5 days of updates.

The innate immune system functions on healthy boundaries in the human body, such as the physical barriers between the gut and the bloodstream, or on the blood vessels that tightly regulate the movement of ions, molecules, and cells between the bloodstream and the brain (termed the blood-brain barrier), or at the genetic level in our cells (like the mutagen proteins in our cells). Also, the innate immune system operates through a variety of enzymes—like the APOBec3A/3G and CAS9. These enzymes are now considered central to innate immunity. 

The adaptive immune system is the secondary means by which our bodies interact with viruses.

The adaptive system mounts a highly specific response to a virus by utilizing the body’s white blood cells, known as lymphocytes (B cells and T cells). The B cells are responsible for releasing antibodies into the bloodstream. Antibodies are the body’s second—not first—method of interaction with a virus after it receives a new viral update or after it develops an imbalance with a particular virus. Antibodies are specific, targeted defences. They usually show up on the scene 3 to 6 weeks after the body’s initial exposure to a virus. Simply put, antibodies act like a cleanup crew, assisting the body in cleaning out viruses and bacteria that are no longer needed. Meanwhile, the T cells are responsible for stimulating the B cells into making antibodies.    

To understand how quickly the human body adapts when exposed to the virome, consider a seven-day-old infant. He has 1 x 108 virus particles in just one gram of feces. Even though that child does not have the capacity to develop any antibodies at such an early stage in life, he nonetheless instantly adapts to these virus particles, remaining perfectly healthy. Instead of developing a fever, he remains in stable equilibrium—homeostasis—with the virome, both microbially and genetically. That fact alone proves that we do not interact with the virome through our adaptive immune system but, rather, interact with it through our innate immune system.

What is the key takeaway from these facts? To me, it is that the body’s decision to take in genetic information is a highly intricate and controlled biological process. There are numerous ways our bodies stay in equilibrium with the huge sea of genetic information that we breathe in and come into contact with every moment of our lives.

Since a virus is not a living organism, our innate immune system cannot kill viruses—nor would it want to. Instead, as mentioned above, the innate immune system simply comes into genetic balance with a new virus. It does this by replicating or receiving updates from that virus—and by immediately responding to that new viral upload. Once genetic balance has been achieved, typically 4 to 5 days after initial exposure to the virus, our innate immune system refuses to receive further updates. 

From these facts, we may conclude that humans cannot stop an “epidemic” from occurring, nor can they change the trajectory of an epidemic. In other words, it is useless—actually, worse than useless: it is harmful—to try to check an always-helpful virus by deploying an unapproved experimental gene-editing device that is designed to produce an antibody response (otherwise known as an adaptive immune system response induced by the injection). That antiquated scientific model is biologically illogical and can never work. We now know that it interferes with our beautifully designed innate immune system, which is perfectly capable of handling any virus with which we may develop a temporary imbalance. (Exactly how we develop an imbalance with a particular virus, like the HIV virus or any coronavirus, will be explained later in the article).

Furthermore, contrary to the official narrative propagated by vaccine makers and governmental health agencies around the world, our immune systems do retain a memory of the viruses that our bodies have interacted with and of the genes that were inserted naturally—upon receiving a new viral update—into our cells. In the innate immune system, for instance, the Cas9 enzyme, which is responsible for cleaving excess DNA when too much of a viral upload is presented to a cell, is the natural memory data bank that will remember which DNA pattern it encountered. 

In addition, the permanent records kept by an innate immune system are passed down to succeeding generations of humans, who therefore will never have an inflammatory-inducing reaction to a particular virus. Even in the adaptive immune system, the B cells (the source of antibodies) and T cells (the B cells’ stimulus) provide lasting immunity. 

A multipronged NIH study presented by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) in 2008 proved conclusively that antibody immunity can last for a lifetime. In that study, a group of scientists, led by Dr. Eric Altschuler, collected blood samples from 32 survivors—between the ages of 91 and 101—of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. (Actually, the correct name for that pandemic is the Kansas Flu—its place of origin.) To their amazement, the scientists discovered that, almost a century later, all of the study’s participants still carried the antibodies to the same strain of influenza. 

Based on the findings of that 21-year-old study, we can dismiss the propaganda foisted upon us by the mainstream media and medical organizations. It is not true that natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus may wear off six months to a year after initial exposure. And it is not true that an experimental injection is the only way one can reach immunity. Such unfounded claims are simply ruses invented to further the avaricious agenda of the pharmaceutical industry and the other technocrats operating behind the scenes. 

Bottom line: The power of natural immunity will always outperform any perceived immunity to a virus said to result from an injection, whether experimental or government-approved. 

Biologically speaking, all life on earth is built from the RNA and DNA molecular genetic sequences contained in viruses. These viruses are exquisitely designed genetic delivery systems essential to initiating and sustaining life on earth. In fact, more than 50 percent of the 20,000 genes inherited by today’s humans were inserted millions of years ago into the mammalian genome by these tiny marvels of nature. At least 8 percent of those genes were inserted by RNA retroviruses similar to the HIV retrovirus. (A retrovirus is an RNA virus which inserts a DNA copy of its genome into the host cell in order to replicate itself.) Equally intriguing is the fact that millions of years ago retroviral updates played a key role in the emergence of placental mammals. 

Interestingly, a 2017 study published by the National Institute of Health (NIH) demonstrates that many of us are carrying the HIV retrovirus without even knowing it. In this study, the researchers “explored non-human sequence data from whole-genome sequencing the blood of 8,240 adults living in the US and Europe—none of whom were ascertained to have any infectious disease. They found that a full 42 percent of the participants tested positive for the presence of 94 known viruses. These viruses included the HIV virus, the hepatitis B virus, the hepatitis C virus, and the influenza virus.                                                                      

We have been trained by the medical community and the corporate-controlled media to believe that the HIV virus should predominate in people living in Sub-Saharan Africa. After all, we are told, 95 percent of all “HIV positive” cases come from that region of the globe. If that were the case, we would expect to see in other regions very little HIV and a far higher prevalence of, say, hepatitis C or influenza. Not so: It is just the reverse! In fact, the 2017 study found a fivefold higher prevalence of the HIV virus than of hepatitis C and influenza in those 8,240 asymptomatic Americans and Europeans. Amazingly, each one was completely in balance with the HIV virus, even though none of them had ever travelled to Africa. We must conclude from this study that not only has the world completely misunderstood the prevalence of the HIV virus in all corners of the globe but that our fear of it—and of the virome in general—is entirely unjustified. 

Given that many powerful organizations, both public and private, profit from the huge grants and donations that perpetuate the endless AIDS movement, it is unsurprising that no scientific peer-reviewed study has been done to provide conclusive evidence that a virus called HIV causes a disease named AIDS. Were any such study to be undertaken, it would prove that the HIV-leads-to-AIDS hypothesis is baseless and, more to the point, fraudulent.

The question scientists should be focusing on is: What is taking place in Sub-Saharan Africa that is creating such an abnormal relationship between people living in that area and the HIV retrovirus, causing 95 percent of them to test HIV-positive? 

For an answer to that question, we need to look at the terrain where viruses reside and stay in balance with the human body. (By “terrain” I mean a geographic area with its associated ecosystem. I am not referring here to the aforementioned Bernard/Béchamp terrain theory.) When a terrain is disrupted by anything unnatural to it—for example, poisoning of the environment by irresponsible human behaviour—the viruses become overexpressed and the body’s balance with the virome is lost. 

Taking account of the terrain, we find that the number one factor common to all so-called infectious disease epidemics or pandemics is the destruction of the ecosystem. In other words, the natural terrain has been altered by irresponsible human behaviour to such an extent that our innate adaptation to all the genetic information surrounding us is undermined. 

It is not that the viruses are causing a disease. Rather, it is that they are simply presenting the body with a new genetic adaptation option. The body’s innate immune system then determines how much of that new information it will absorb. If the cells are in dire need of repair—perhaps as a result of poor dietary choices, a sedentary lifestyle, or toxicity in the environment—the virus will create an inflammation event as the body goes through its regenerative process. This is usually accompanied by a fever, loss of appetite, and an elevated white blood cell count. Such an inflammatory event is what we commonly refer to as “the flu.” 

What we derogatively call an inflammatory event—implying it is bad for the body—is actually a part of the body’s healing process. The inflammation is needed to create regeneration within the body. It is acting on behalf of the body, not against it. But if the body’s microbiome is replete instead of wanting, it will not need an update, and therefore no inflammation will take place. 

In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, the ecosystem is dying. The collapse of nutrient-rich soil systems, poor water hygiene, a lack of basic sanitation, a chronically undernourished population, and the complete elimination of traditional organic farming—overtaken by the oxymoronic Green Revolution, foisted on developing countries by industrial agriculture—have caused a large portion of that population to develop an imbalance between their innate immune system and the environment. The syndrome known as “AIDS” is an expression of that imbalance. The HIV virus, which was first discovered by French virologist Luc Montagnier, has been falsely accused of being the primary culprit responsible for AIDS—a form of guilt by association. In actual fact, the HIV virus is benign and is not trying to take over the mechanics of any cell. 

The real root of the problem is that the innate immune system of the Sub-Saharan African people has been degraded by a lack of nutrition to such an extent that they are falling prey to a myriad of illnesses, which have been collectively grouped under the single title “AIDS.” However, instead of coming to terms with the reality of what the dire ecological disaster is causing, “scientists” are blaming the HIV virus as a cover to hide decades of government and corporate environmental and economic crimes.

From the information covered thus far, we can rightly conclude that it is impossible for viruses or pathogens to create infectious disease pandemics and epidemics—for there is no such thing as an infectious disease in the traditional sense of the term—examples being “AIDS,” “Ebola,” and other unfounded “viral” pandemics. Yes, pharmaceutical propaganda has been pushing the infectious disease paradigm on world thought for centuries. But the belief that such diseases exist is no more than an outgrowth of Pasteur’s debunked germ theory. What we commonly refer to as an epidemic or a pandemic is simply the result of a degraded innate immune system showing up in a segment of the planet’s population. The reasons for this degradation can include chemical poisoning from herbicides, pesticides, or genetically modified foods, which we will look at in more detail below. 

As we can see by the above description of the virome, it is no exaggeration to say that the virome is the language of all life on earth. We are literally swimming in a vast sea of genomic information that was essential for life to begin and flourish on this precious earth and that is still trying to help all species survive. The matrix of organisms that make up the microbiome have built a viromic information stream that has allowed for adaptation and biodiversity to occur on the planet. And that very same viromic information stream is responsible for building the human species.

Thus, humans are not separate from the virome and the microbiome but are, rather, integral to the virome and microbiome’s vast, complex ecosystem. Yet we have increasingly placed ourselves in direct opposition to the very living system of which we are an intrinsic part: nature.


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

David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in aerospace engineering. During his two tours of duty as a captain in the Canadian Air Force, he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Using an inquisitive mind, a keen eye for detail, and problem-solving skills honed during his university years and throughout his career, David devoted over one hundred hours to researching the latest scientific findings in the fields of virology and microbiology to bring this article to fruition. 

A Saigon Moment Looms in Kabul

August 15th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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.


August 12, 2021. History will register it as the day the Taliban, nearly 20 years after 9/11 and the subsequent toppling of their 1996-2001 reign by American bombing, struck the decisive blow against the central government in Kabul.

In a coordinated blitzkrieg, the Taliban all but captured three crucial hubs: Ghazni and Kandahar in the center, and Herat in the west. They had already captured most of the north. As it stands, the Taliban control 14 (italics mine) provincial capitals and counting.

First thing in the morning, they took Ghazni, which is situated around 140 kilometers from Kabul. The repaved highway is in good condition. Not only are the Taliban moving closer and closer to Kabul: for all practical purposes they now control the nation’s top artery, Highway 1 from Kabul to Kandahar via Ghazni.

That in itself is a strategic game-changer. It will allow the Taliban to encircle and besiege Kabul simultaneously from north and south, in a pincer movement.

Kandahar fell by nightfall after the Taliban managed to breach the security belt around the city, attacking from several directions.

In Ghazni, provincial governor Daoud Laghmani cut a deal, fled and then was arrested. In Kandahar, provincial governor Rohullah Khanzada – who belongs to the powerful Popolzai tribe – left with only a few bodyguards.

He opted to engage in an elaborate deal, convincing the Taliban to allow the remaining military to retreat to Kandahar airport and be evacuated by helicopter. All their equipment, heavy weapons and ammunition should be transferred to the Taliban.

Afghan Special Forces represented the cream of the crop in Kandahar. Yet they were only protecting a few select locations. Now their next mission may be to protect Kabul. The final deal between the governor and the Taliban should be struck soon. Kandahar has indeed fallen.

In Herat, the Taliban attacked from the east while notorious former warlord Ismail Khan, leading his militia, put up a tremendous fight from the west. The Taliban progressively conquered the police HQ, “liberated” prison inmates and laid siege to the governor’s office.

Game over: Herat has also fallen with the Taliban now controlling the whole of Western Afghanistan, all the way to the borders with Iran.

Tet Offensive, remixed

Military analysts will have a ball deconstructing this Taliban equivalent to the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Satellite intel may have been instrumental: it’s as if the whole battlefield progress had been coordinated from above.

Yet there are some quite prosaic reasons for the success of the onslaught apart from strategic acumen: corruption in the Afghan National Army (ANA); total disconnect between Kabul and battlefield commanders; lack of American air support; the deep political divide in Kabul itself.

In parallel, the Taliban had been secretly reaching out for months, through tribal connections and family ties, offering a deal: don’t fight us and you will be spared.

Add to it a deep sense of betrayal by the West felt by those connected with the Kabul government, mixed with fear of Taliban revenge against collaborationists.

A very sad subplot, from now on, concerns civilian helplessness – felt by those who consider themselves trapped in cities that are now controlled by the Taliban. Those that made it before the onslaught are the new Afghan IDPs, such as the ones who set up a refugee camp in the Sara-e-Shamali park in Kabul.

Rumors were swirling in Kabul that Washington had suggested to President Ashraf Ghani to resign, clearing the way for a ceasefire and the establishment of a transitional government.

On the record, what’s established is that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin promised Ghani to “remain invested” in Afghan security.

Reports indicate the Pentagon plans to redeploy 3,000 troops and Marines to Afghanistan and another 4,000 to the region to evacuate the US Embassy and US citizens in Kabul.

The alleged offer to Ghani actually originated in Doha – and came from Ghani’s people, as I confirmed with diplomatic sources.

The Kabul delegation, led by Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman of something called the High Council for National Reconciliation, via Qatar mediation, offered the Taliban a power-sharing deal as long as they stop the onslaught. There’s been no mention of Ghani resigning, which is the Taliban’s number one condition for any negotiation.

The extended troika in Doha is working overtime. The US lines up immovable object Zalmay Khalilzad, widely mocked in the 2000s as “Bush’s Afghan.” The Pakistanis have special envoy Muhammad Sadiq and ambassador to Kabul Mansoor Khan.

The Russians have the Kremlin’s envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov. And the Chinese have a new Afghan envoy, Xiao Yong.

Russia-China-Pakistan are negotiating with a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) frame of mind: all three are permanent members. They emphasize a transition government, power-sharing, and recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political force.

Diplomats are already hinting that if the Taliban topple Ghani in Kabul, by whatever means, they will be recognized by Beijing as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan – something that will set up yet another incendiary geopolitical front in the confrontation against Washington.

As it stands, Beijing is just encouraging the Taliban to strike a peace agreement with Kabul.

The Pashtunistan riddle

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has minced no words as he stepped into the fray. He confirmed the Taliban leadership told him there’s no negotiation with Ghani in power – even as he tried to persuade them to reach for a peace deal.

Khan accused Washington of regarding Pakistan as “useful” only when it comes to pressing Islamabad to use its influence over the Taliban to broker a deal – without considering the “mess” the Americans left behind.

Khan once again said he “made it very clear” there will be no US military bases in Pakistan.

This is a very good analysis of how hard it is for Khan and Islamabad to explain Pakistan’s complex involvement with Afghanistan to the West and also the Global South.

The key issues are quite clear:

1. Pakistan wants a power-sharing deal and is doing what it can in Doha, along the extended troika, to reach it.

2. A Taliban takeover will lead to a new influx of refugees and may encourage jihadis of the al-Qaeda, TTP and ISIS-Khorasan kind to destabilize Pakistan.

3. It was the US that legitimized the Taliban by striking an agreement with them during the Donald Trump administration.

4. And because of the messy withdrawal, the Americans reduced their leverage – and Pakistan’s – over the Taliban.

The problem is Islamabad simply does not manage to get these messages across.

And then there are some bewildering decisions. Take the AfPak border between Chaman (in Pakistan’s Balochistan) and Spin Boldak (in Afghanistan).

The Pakistanis closed their side of the border. Every day tens of thousands of people, overwhelmingly Pashtun and Baloch, from both sides cross back and forth alongside a mega-convoy of trucks transporting merchandise from the port of Karachi to landlocked Afghanistan. To shut down such a vital commercial border is an unsustainable proposition.

All of the above leads to arguably the ultimate problem: what to do about Pashtunistan?

The absolute heart of the matter when it comes to Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan and Afghan interference in the Pakistani tribal areas is the completely artificial, British Empire-designed Durand Line. 

Islamabad’s definitive nightmare is another partition. Pashtuns are the largest tribe in the world and they live on both sides of the (artificial) border. Islamabad simply cannot admit a nationalist entity ruling Afghanistan because that will eventually foment a Pashtun insurrection in Pakistan.

And that explains why Islamabad prefers the Taliban compared to an Afghan nationalist government. Ideologically, conservative Pakistan is not that dissimilar from the Taliban positioning. And in foreign policy terms, the Taliban in power perfectly fit the unmovable “strategic depth” doctrine that opposes Pakistan to India.

In contrast, Afghanistan’s position is clear-cut. The Durand Line divides Pashtuns on both sides of an artificial border. So any nationalist government in Kabul will never abandon its desire for a larger, united Pashtunistan.

As the Taliban are de facto a collection of warlord militias, Islamabad has learned by experience how to deal with them. Virtually every warlord – and militia – in Afghanistan is Islamic.

Even the current Kabul arrangement is based on Islamic law and seeks advice from an Ulema council. Very few in the West know that Sharia law is the predominant trend in the current Afghan constitution.

Closing the circle, ultimately all members of the Kabul government, the military, as well as a great deal of civil society come from the same conservative tribal framework that gave birth to the Taliban.

Apart from the military onslaught, the Taliban seem to be winning the domestic PR battle because of a simple equation: they portray Ghani as a NATO and US puppet, the lackey of foreign invaders.

And to make that distinction in the graveyard of empires has always been a winning proposition.


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 Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.




China has rejected as politically-motivated the World Health Organization’s calls for a renewed probe into the origins of Covid-19. The organization conducted its first investigation in January in the Chinese city of Wuhan. But, the probe failed to conclude how the virus started.


PressTV: How do you see this claim by China?

Peter Koenig: China is absolutely right. WHO had their day in court, so to speak, in January this year. A WHO delegation visited China and came to their conclusions, pretty much to what China said from the beginning, that the virus did not originate in China.

But the West is not happy.

In order to continue demonizing China, the West would like WHO’s authority to say the contrary.

Mind you – and this may be important for many listeners and viewers – you should know who are the key financiers of WHO, other than the member countries…

First, the creation of the WHO as a UN agency was a multi-purpose Rockefeller initiative. This short video may provide some valuable background.

Video: History and the Rockefellers  (click lower right corner to enlarge screen)


Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, broken up into many pieces to avoid US anti-monopoly laws transformed basically into ExxonMobile. The Rockefellers wanted to transform the health industry, at that time still largely based on traditional herbal and natural medicine, into a petrochemical pharma-market. And they were successful, as we know today.

“Outside” sources, so-called extrabudgetary funding, is about 3 to 4 times higher than the regular WHO budget, which consists principally from member countries’ contribution.

Among the “outside” funders, are the most prominent ones, The Gates Foundation, GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (has about 28 members, most of them pharma-companies), also created by Bill Gates, which is, by the way, housed just next door to WHO in Geneva, and other pharmaceuticals and supporters of Big-pharma. Of course, they are not donating directly to WHO, that would be too obvious, but in indirect format, such as through trust-funds and similar modes, so it is less recognizable.

It is also clear, as has been since the beginning, that the corona virus was laboratory made, there are several patents available – you won’t find them anymore on internet – as the fake “fact checkers” had them all removed.

Given this background, it is obvious that the west needs (1) somebody else to blame for covid, and (2) to accuse especially China. China is a menace for the west, an imagined menace, but imagined all the same, because the west led by the US — is in an economic decline, and with it, the supremacy of the western world, so far maintained by the US-dollar. It is a fiat currency dominance, militarily supported, by NATO. And it is in rapid decline.

While China’s currency, the Yuan, is based on the country’s economic strength. Nothing fiat here. And that is what keeps the west trembling, as counties’ treasurers around the globe are abandoning the dollar as reserve asset and are switching to the yuan and other currencies.

PTV: What are western government motivations in this?

PK: The motivation is to keep further demonizing China.

But it will not work, because more people are waking up to reality.

Covid is but one “instrument” to demonize China. A strong one, or at least that’s what wester politicians, dictators think.

On another front, for example, China is surrounded by between 1200 and 1400, military bases, direct US or from other countries that allow US military to be stationed there. But to no avail. China is not only prepared, but much of the rest of the western world signal their support to US dominance not because they believe in it, but because of fear from retaliation.

More people than ever start realizing that this covid plandemic has nothing to do with health, as by Fauci’s own words – when he isn’t on the bought mainstream media, but has to defend peer-reviewed science. That’s when he says that covid is about equivalent to a common flu.

What we are seeing in the west is an increasing trend towards dictatorial, or even tyrannical methods to control people, with various forms of lockdowns, or semi-lockdowns.

They are inventing for that purpose ever more covid “variants” … currently it’s the Delta variant – and already waiting in the wings is probably the Epsilon variant – and so on….

It is amazing that it takes so long for the people to open their eyes and realize that there is another agenda behind this highly criminal fraud, an agenda that, as I mentioned before, has nothing to do with health, but that uses an invisible enemy, a virus, as an instrument to hold the entire world hostage and in awe.

All of the 193 UN member countries follow the same dictate – a dictate of FEAR, that comes way from above, from a money dominated obscure cult that has the purpose of massively reducing world population, shoveling money and other resources from the bottom and the center to the top, and controlling what’s left of the surviving population, largely by AI and robotization.


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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on China vs. the WHO. “The Virus did not Originate in China”. The WHO was an Initiative of the Rockefellers
  • Tags: , ,

Important article by John C. A Manley. First published in October 2020

“A group is suing Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and Tulsa Health Department Executive Director Bruce Dart, saying the city’s mask mandate is harmful to healthy people,” reports Activist Post. [October 2020] The group includes business owners and two doctors who “are asking the city to immediately repeal the mask mandate which was passed by city council last month.”

At a press conference, optometrist Robert Zoellner said:

“…the fear factor has got to step back. This idea that I don’t want to give you something that I don’t even know that I have is almost at the point of ridiculous. Let’s use some common sense.”

Dr. James Meehan, MD followed by warning that mask wearing has “well-known risks that have been well-studied and they’re not being discussed in the risk analysis.

“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.

“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.”

Dr. Meehan adds:

“New research is showing that cloth masks may be increasing the aerosolization of the SARS-COV-2 virus into the environment causing an increased transmission of the disease…”

In conclusion, Dr. Meehan states:

“In February and March we were told not to wear masks. What changed? The science didn’t change. The politics did. This is about compliance. It’s not about science… Our opposition is using low-level retrospective observational studies that should not be the basis for making a medical decision of this nature.”


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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Briefs – an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novel, Brave New Normal: A Dystopian Love Story. Visit his website at: He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) won its historic case today against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a case challenging the agency’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines regarding wireless-based technologies including 5G.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit published its decision Aug.13. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider the non-cancer evidence regarding adverse health effects of wireless technology when it decided that its1996 radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public’s health.

The court’s judgment states:

“The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”

CHD Chairman and attorney on the case Robert F Kennedy, Jr. said:

“The court’s decision exposes the FCC and FDA as captive agencies that have abandoned their duty to protect public health in favor of a single-minded crusade to increase telecom industry profits.”

CHD’s case was consolidated with another similar case that was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The organizations filed joint briefs in the case.

CHD’s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, a telecommunication and administrative law attorney who represented the petitioners in the hearing, said:

“This is an historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidenceshowing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.

The court’s decision continued to say:

 “…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment…The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”

The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology which the FCC ignored, including evidence of already existing widespread sickness.

Attorney Dafna Tachover, CHD’s director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project, who initiated and led the case for CHD, said:

“The FCC will finally have to recognize the immense suffering by the millions of people who have already been harmed by the FCC’s and FDA’s unprecedented failure to protect public health. Finally the truth is out. I am hopeful that following this decision, the FCC will do the right thing and halt any further deployment of 5G.”

The court ruling was a two-to-one panel decision. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote the majority opinion. Judge Patricia Millett joined him and Judge Karen Henderson, who presided over the panel, issued a dissent.

CHD President Mary Holland said:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals decision in CHD’s case against the FCC reaffirms my faith in the judiciary. In these chaotic days, courts can still hold out the hope for sober-minded decisions according to the rule of law. I eagerly await FCC action in compliance with the court’s ruling.”

This historic case was filed by CHD on Feb. 2, 2020. The case challenged the agency’s decision not to review its 25-year-old radio-frequency emissions (RF) guidelines which regulate the radiation emitted by wireless technology devices (such as cell phones and iPads) and infrastructure (cell towers, Wi-Fi and smart-meters), and to promulgate biologically and evidence-based guidelines that adequately protect public health.

In 1996, the FCC adopted guidelines which only protect consumers from adverse effects occurring at levels of radiation that cause thermal effects (temperature change in tissue), while ignoring substantial evidence of profound harms from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn’t reviewed its guidelines or the evidence since, despite clear scientific evidence of harm and growing rates of RF-related sickness.

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office of Congress published a report recommending the FCC reassess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013 the FCC published an inquiry to decide whether the guidelines should be reviewed. It opened docket 13-84 for the public to file comments.

Thousands of comments and scientific evidence by scientists, medical organizations and doctors, as well as hundreds of comments by people who have become sick from this radiation were filed in support of new rules. Nevertheless, on Dec. 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and published its decision, affirming the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment of the comments or the evidence.

The lawsuit, called a Petition for Review, contends that the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

CHD’s lawsuit was joined by nine individual petitioners. Petitioners include Professor David Carpenter MD, a world-renowned scientist and public health expert who is co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most comprehensive review of the science on RF effects; physicians who see the sickness caused by wireless radiation in their clinics; and a mother whose son died of a cell phone-related brain tumor.

CHD’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However it was transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit where it was joined with a similar lawsuit filed by the Environmental Health Trust and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. The main brief and the reply brief were filed jointly by all petitioners.


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

International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals

August 15th, 2021 by United Health Professionals

First published on March 16, 2021

We bring to the attention of our readers, this important international statement by health professionals, medical doctors and scientists,  which has been sent to the governments of thirty countries

Below is the complete text which was sent to the governments.

Link to original document: Very Urgent : International Alert message about COVID-19

See here for list of governments to which the letter  was sent.

The text includes quotations from prominent scholars and health professionals

Related Health Professionals Document (pdf version uploaded to GR)


Selected Highlights 

Stay home, save lives » was a pure lie.

Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures : lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters.

The lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life.

The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures [lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew

When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course.

Exclude your experts and advisers who have links or conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies :

Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project

[NB, error in date in screenshot below, should February 13, 2021]



We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.

First, let’s start with the conclusions of the 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic : 

« The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, ot only by the World Health Organization (WHO) but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level. It is particularly troubled by some of the consequences of decisions taken and advice given leading to distortion of priorities of public health services across Europe, waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions….unregulated or secret lobbying may be a danger and can undermine democratic principles and good governance ».

Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.

The countries of the world (except rare cases like : Sweden, Belarus or Tanzania), without thinking, have only imitated and blindly followed others.

This epidemic is amplified, dramatized and instrumentalised by criminals who take advantage of it to achieve economic, political and ideological goals and agendas that are harmful to humanity and we will prove this to you. You must stop this global scam quickly (because it is a serious danger to your people and your country in terms of : health, economy, education, ecology and human rights) by immediately taking the following actions :

1-Lift all restrictions 

Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures : lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters. These crazy and stupid measures are heresies invented in 2020 that do not exist in medicine or public health and they are not based on any scientific evidence.

This is not how we manage an outbreak :

– « The world went mad » with coronavirus lockdowns which « fly in the face of what is known about handling virus pandemics » (Dr Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, June 24, 2020).

– « The infection fatality rate seems to be about the same as for influenza, but we have never introduced these drastic measures before, when we had influenza pandemics. And we cannot live with them for years to come » (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 1, 2020).

– « The decision of lockdown as the decision of wearing masks…are not based on scientific data…» (Prof. Didier Raoult, June 24, 2020).

– « The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures [lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew, etc.]…The lockdown did not trigger the decrease in cases…As for the closure of restaurants which had very strict health protocols in place…of course, I have no way of defending it…it has not influenced the epidemic at all…The lockdown has not changed anything…» (Prof. Philippe Parola, December 3, 2020).

– « There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule. Poor quality research is being used to justify a policy with enormous consequences for us all » (Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, June 19, 2020).

– « Grotesque, absurd and very dangerous measures…a horrible impact on the world economy…self- destruction and collective suicide… » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, March 2020. He also sent, at the time, a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel).

In addition, these tyrannical measures violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its articles: 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27, 28, 30 and the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child in its articles : 28, 29, 32, 37.

– « When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course. The pandemic has led to the violation of basic human rights…There has not been the slightest ethical analysis of whether this was justified. It is not» (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 4, 2020).

Forcing non-sick people to wear masks is not only a heresy but it is also harmful to health as well as to ecology and is a form of mistreatment :

– « Dictatorship of masks totally unfounded » (Prof. Christian Perronne, September 22, 2020).

– « The curfew…was used during the German occupation when the militia and the Gestapo went to the houses. And now we’ll have the police making visits to see if there are more than six people at the table ! What is this madness ?! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, October 15, 2020).

– « Every winter in Paris, the ICU beds are totally saturated. We transfer patients…every winter, in normal circumstances » (Prof. Bruno Mégarbane, anesthesiologist and intensive care physician, September 27, 2020)

 « In neither of the 2 waves… all the ICU were not saturated, it is false ! » (Prof. Michaël Peyromaure, January 18, 2021)

2-Open up economy, schools, universities, air transport and hospital units.

3-Exclude your experts and advisers who have links or conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies

The 2010 report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the management of the H1N1 epidemic also said :

« The Assembly calls on public health authorities at international, European and national level -and notably WHO-…to ensure that all persons subject to conflicts of interest are excluded from sensitive decision-making processes ».

Countries’ experts who pushed for these totally heretical measures are either followers, ignorant or corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.

4-Require an international and independent investigation and that those responsible for this scam be tried

On October 1st, 2020, German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich announced that an international network of lawyers will argue the biggest fraud case ever :

« The anti-corona measures have caused and continue to cause such devastating damage to the world’s population’s health and economy that the crimes committed by (…) the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against humanity as defined in section 7 of the international criminal code ».

He said also that this must be called « a corona scandal and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages ». The investigation must focus, among others, on Bruce Aylward (WHO) and Neil Ferguson (ICL).

-On January 10, 2021 : A letter relayed by The Sun and written by lawyers, a member of Parliament, human rights activists and a former US Air Force general was addressed to the FBI and MI-5 along with security services in Canada, Germany and Australia, where the authors say :

« We are writing this letter to request that a federal investigation be commenced and/or expedited regarding the scientific debate on major policy decisions during the COVID-19 crisis. In the course of our work, we have identified issues of a potentially criminal nature and believe this investigation necessary to ensure the interests of the public have been properly represented by those promoting certain pandemic policies ».

The letter call which was « deliberately promulgated…to impoverish the nations who implemented it »

Rare countries like Sweden, Tanzania or Belarus -which can be congratulated- have refused the lockdown and have not blindly followed others and if we apply the reasoning of the lockdown defenders, the outcome must be a massacre or the saturation of their hospital system. Is this the case in these three countries ?

The answer is of course : no. Moreover, on September 15, 2020, The BMJ published an article entitled :

« COVID-19 : How does Belarus have one of the lowest death rates in Europe ? ».

These three countries are living proof of the lockdown scam and since this reality might wake up public opinion and people see that they have been lied to, a corrupt press has been spreading, from the beginning, articles and even fake news, against Sweden and Belarus.

The famous international slogan:

« Stay home, save lives » was a pure lie. On the contrary, the lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life. For example, the lockdown in the USA has killed thousands of Alzheimer’s patients who have also died far from their families. In the United Kingdom : the lockdown killed 21,000 people.

The effects of the lockdown « have been absolutely deleterious. They did not save the lives they had announced they could be able to save…It is a weapon of mass destruction and we see its health…social…economic effects…which form the real second wave » (Prof. Jean-François Toussaint, September 24, 2020).

– « This country is making a dramatic mistake…What are we going to suggest ? That everyone stay locked up all his life because there are viruses outside ?! You’re all crazy, you’ve become all nuts !…we are setting the planet on fire » (Prof. Didier Raoult, October 27, 2020).

– « It is a big delirium but which is instrumentalised by big pharma and also politicians…It is a fear organized for political and economic reasons » (Prof. Christian Perronne, August 31, 2020).

– « It is just a global scam to make huge profits, bail out the banks and meanwhile ruin the middle classes in the name of an epidemic…made destructive by liberticidal, allegedly health measures » (Dr Nicole Delépine, December 18, 2020).

– « We have medical evidences that this is a scam » (Dr Heiko Schöning, July 2020).

– « Think about these two questions :…Is the coronavirus man-made ?…Have they tried to use this viral disease or this psychosis for their own ends & interests ?» (Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus). –

« There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public….it should be known as nothing more than a bad flu season. this is not Ebola. It’s not SARS » (Dr Roger Hodkinson, November 13, 2020).

5-No longer blindly follow the recommendations of the WHO and require that it be totally reformed

An investigation carried out in 2016 (WHO in the clutches of lobbyists) showed an edifying radiography of the WHO ; a weakened structure subject to multiple conflicts of interest. This investigation has shown how private interests dominate public health in the WHO. Another investigation (Trust WHO) also revealed these serious anomalies.

6-Use the recognized measures for the management of epidemics 

Such as recommendations of hand washing, sneeze or cough into the elbow, use a mask but only for patients and healthcare professionals (in specific situations), isolation of the sick, etc. The severity of an epidemic is assessed by the case fatality rate (CFR), among other things. However, the latter is very low (0.03-0.05%) and there is therefore no justification for taking measures that are not only disproportionate but also unscientific.

7-Make the media aware of their responsabilities 

The media must, for example, stop talking about the coronavirus.

8-Remove the requirement for tests

The people who push for mandatory testing are defrauding governments and pursuing only economic goals. Nothing in this coronavirus (which is a benign virus and with a low CFR) justifies it. The flu infects one billion people each year, far more than SARS-CoV-2, spreads faster and has more populations at risk than this coronavirus and yet no test is required for travel. This is why Professor Didier Raoult called « a delirium » the claim that it is a serious illness and said, on August 19, 2020, that « it is not worse than the flu ».

– « The infection fatality rate for this new coronavirus is likely to be in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza » (Prof. John Ioannidis, April 17, 2020).

– « Reassure the large majority of the population that their risk of dying or getting severe disease from COVID-19 is very low » (Prof. John Ioannidis, April 22, 2020).

– « Do you realize ? Today, we are destroying the economy whereas finally the figures are comparable with those we experienced with the flu ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, October 25, 2020).

9-Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project 

– « We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals » (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).

– « It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies : if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question » (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).

– « As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government ; we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production » (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020).

– The COVID vaccine is « so, so unnecessary » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).

– « I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).

– « We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0,05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be carefull, this is very dangerous ! » (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).

To the question : « We do not need a general vaccine for the whole humanity with 0.05% deaths ? », Professor Christian Perronne replied : « It’s obvious ! ».

-In November 30, 2020 : Professor Christian Perronne wrote a letter in which he alerted on the danger of the vaccines based on genetic engineering :

« The people who promote these gene therapies, falsely called “vaccines”, are sorcerer’s apprentices and take…the citizens of the world for guinea pigs ».

-On October 19, 2020, in a correspondence to the journal The Lancet, scientists expressed concerns and warned :

« we are concerned that use of an Ad5 vector for immunisation against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could similarly increase the risk of HIV-1 acquisition among men who receive the vaccine ».

-If people accept the COVID-19 vaccine, it will be :

« a mistake because we risk having absolutely unpredictable effects : for example, cancers…We are playing the total sorcerer’s apprentice…Man must not serve as a guinea pig, children must not serve as guinea pigs, it is absolutely unethical. There must not be deaths from vaccines » (Prof. Luc Montagnier, Virologist and Nobel Prize in Medicine, December 17, 2020.

-In Switzerland, a group of 700 doctors and health professionals called on January 15, 2021 for stopping the vaccination campaign

– « I think it’s [the COVID vaccine] downright dangerous. And I warn you, if you go along these lines, you are going to go to your doom » (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).

-On December 30, 2020 : Réaction 19 (a French association founded by lawyers with nearly 60,000 members) informed, in a press release, that it has filed a complaint concerning the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna “vaccines” for : deliberately endangering the life of others, aggravated deception, abuse of weakness and aggravated extortion.

-Recently, several Members of the European Parliament have alerted the population because they are forbidden to consult the contracts signed with pharmaceutical laboratories. This opacity is a proof that there are compromising things they want to hide. Michèle Rivasi, a Member of the European Parliament, even lodged a complaint5. As a reminder6: in 2009, Pfizer was fined $ 2.3 billion, the largest fine ever imposed by the courts of the United States on a pharmaceutical group. It was found guilty of fraudulent commercial practices.

In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined 520 million euros for recommending unauthorized use of a drug. In 2011, Merck payed a fine of $ 628.36 million to resolve allegations of off-label marketing and false statements about the cardiovascular safety of a drug.

In 2013, a fine of 1.62 billion euros was imposed on Johnson & Johnson to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription of three drugs including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.

You must stop this global scam where the politico-economic (even ideological) agendas of criminals are to COVID what the Iraq war was to the attacks of September 11th, 2001 (here’s a reminder of the scam of the Iraq war :

These criminals manipulate the countries of the world and want to make the epidemic last as long as possible to achieve their goals when the COVID epidemic should have been declared over at a certain period of the past year ; indeed, in medicine, the epidemic threshold from which the beginning and the end of an epidemic are declared is between 150 and 200 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The Tanzanian president is one of the few presidents who understood this because he declared on June 8, 2020 that the COVID epidemic was over in his country.

« The epidemic is over ! » (Professor Yoram Lass, July 2, 2020)7.

In this epidemic, the danger is not the coronavirus but the people who instrumentalise it and who are the real virus to fight.

The virus is completely innocent of what is happening (impoverishment, job losses, suicides, deaths, economic recession, unemployment, etc.) and the real culprits are those who have pushed the world to use these measures and the governments that continue to implement these measures despite alerts and warnings.

« The World Bank has just estimated that the corona pandemic has caused an increase of about 100 million people living in extreme poverty. This is not because of COVID-19. It is because of the draconian measures we have introduced » (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 1, 2020).

The discrepancy and disproportion between the level of dangerousness of the virus and the magnitude of the measures taken (which are moreover totally heretical) are so obvious that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that there are other objectives behind. You have to be really blind or naive not to see it.

With these measures which have nothing to do with medicine or science, governments are not fighting the dangers of the virus but are fighting the basic rights of their people and destroying their health, economy, education, ecology, culture and other aspects of life.

« We have been living a kind of delirium from the start…We live in a world which is crazy :…the conditions that have been taken to fight this disease are conditions from another century…it is not even the level of the Middle Ages ! » (Prof. Didier Raoult, December 7, 2020).

On December 28, 2020, Randy Hillier, a Canadian MP, wrote this message on Twitter along with the hashtags : #We Are Living A Lie and #No More Lockdowns : « The lies and deceptions of Covid are over. How & why so many allowed themselves to be deceived will take years to uncover ».

It is not because the majority of countries are doing the same thing that it means that it is good or that it is the right thing to do. The number is not a criterion for knowing whether or not countries are right to apply these measures. On the contrary, many historical examples show that the majority is often wrong ; Iraq war (rare countries like France did not follow and were right), H1N1 (rare countries like Poland did not follow and were right), World War II, etc.

The charge of conspiracy theories is the response of those who have no arguments and a technique of mass manipulation because all what has been reported in this letter does not consist of theories but of truths and statements made by eminent experts including Nobel laureates for medicine.

This letter will be kept as proof that your government has been alerted. Everything must return immediately to normal and this global hostage-taking must stop because you have known that you have been the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21th century.

Please, don’t make the mistake of underestimating our letter or ignoring it. Here are 2 examples of what happens when a government makes this mistake :

Despite warnings from several experts about the danger of Dengvaxia (dengue vaccine), the Philippine government decided in 2016 to launch a vaccination campaign that ended later in a public scandal. According to the office of the prosecutor Persida Acosta, 500 children died as a result of this vaccine and several thousand are sick.

According to the prosecutor, the responsibilities are shared between the laboratory which sold “a dangerous vaccine” and the government which set up a “massive and indiscriminate” vaccination campaign, in deplorable conditions. This vaccine, however, promised to be a planetary triumph ; in 2015, Sanofi confirmed with great fanfare the marketing of a revolutionary dengue vaccine. It was a world first, the product of twenty years of research and 1,5 billion euros of investment.

Yet from the beginning, voices raised in the scientific community : Doctor Antonio Dans tried to warn about the inconclusive results of the first clinical trials. In the USA, Professor Scott Halstead, a world renowned specialist in the disease, even sent a video broadcasted in the Senate of the country to urge to suspend the vaccination program. The former health minister of the country has been charged in this scandal. « It’s the lure of profit that killed these children », said prosecutor Persida Acosta.

The second example is the scandal of the H1N1 vaccine which was bought by several countries despite alerts from Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, the chairman of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who in a motion for a recommendation entitled « Faked Pandemics – a threat for health » said : « In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide.

They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines ». He was totally right because, later, in Europe alone the vaccine made 1,500 victims of narcolepsy including 80% of children, so much so that on November 24, 2013, the Swedish Minister of Social Affairs, Göran Hägglund, said he was ready to publicly apologize to the victims of the swine flu vaccine.

We cannot tell you everything in this letter, that is why you must consult the following documents very carefully because everything you have been told is detailed and argued there, and because you will discover other things that you do not know and by which you will be even shocked :

For footnotes and references click here

See here for list of countries

Sources :                                                                                                                                                                

1 :                                                                                                                    

2 :                                                                                                                                                                                                       

3 :                                                                                                                                        

4 :                                                                                                                  

5 :                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

6 :                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

7 :

First published by Global Research on August 14, 2020


One of the direct impacts of the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 is challenging human rights. The pandemic not only created and still creating health issues, economic challenges, political crises and social conflicts around the world, it also affects individual rights and freedoms. Human rights are facing violations such as arbitrary detention, discrimination, censorship, and xenophobia. The fundamental rights that may be involved in this pandemic are, among others, the right to privacy, the right to free movement, the right to health, the right to employment, the right to non-discrimination, freedom of assembly and expression, the right to information and the right to health care.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which is a multilateral treaty adopted by most countries, and the United Nations General Assembly (1966)[1] is emphasizing that everyone has the right to the highest standard of physical and mental health. Based on this treaty, the Sates are required to take the necessary measures to prevent, treat and control any epidemic, pandemic and other diseases. Therefore, the right to health is closely linked to other human rights, which set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948[2].

Freedom of expression

According to article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which implies the right not to be worried about their opinions. Freedom of opinion and expression is considered as a fundamental human right, such as freedom of information and freedom of the press, which lays the foundation for all other rights. Some states declare a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19. This exceptional measures created an environment to limit the freedom of expression.

In the context of COVID-19, a large number of journalists and media actors around the world are restrained from performing their functions, especially when it concerns statistics about the death-causing from the pandemic.

International human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, requires that restrictions on human rights for reasons of public health or national emergency be following the law, necessary and proportionate.

Rights to privacy and personal life

The protection of privacy also affirmed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 12 states that an individual has the right to respect for his private life. This right includes the professional and medical confidentiality, the protection of privacy and the protection of the confidentiality of patient information. The government response to the COVID-19 pandemic may require restricting measures that control people’s life affects directly the fundamental freedoms and human rights, specifically the right to data protection. In this regard, it is essential to remember that data protection cannot, in any case, constitute an obstacle to saving human lives. However, some countries use these data to restrain individual freedom.

It is crucial to know how to create a balance in collecting and processing personal data for global public health purposes without risking a disproportionate impact on the rights to privacy and personal life.

Xenophobia and racism

Racism against Asians, especially against Chinese people, is increasing from the beginning of Covid-19. Replacing the world “Chinese virus” instead “coronavirus” is a growing manifest of racism from different backgrounds. They have been the target of racist threats and intimidation in both public and online places, as well as acts of physical violence. According to the principle of fundamental human rights, nobody should feel threatened or rejected because of their race, skin color or origin.

In this situation, xenophobia and racism are not only a violation of human rights. They also considered a threat to national security.  For these reasons, much remains to be done to ensure that COVID-19 does not worsen racial inequalities at national and international levels.

Border restriction and control

During the current Covid-19 pandemic, some governments are taking exceptional measures to control their borders to limit the spread of the virus. It is crucial to make a balance between state security and human rights to fully respect the rule of law. Even in a real emergency, the rule of law must be dominated. In the context of severe threats to public health and the event of public emergencies threatening national security, restrictions on individual rights may be justified if they have a legal basis and are strictly necessary. This exceptional situation must be based on scientific evidence, limited for the duration of time, respectful of human dignity, subject to examination and finally should be proportional.

Suppression of information

Free access to information is considered as a human right. The right to information is essential for the health care of people around the world, and it must be accessible during the COVID-19 crisis. Restrictions on access to health information constitute human rights violations.

Based on the gravity of the current global health crisis, the application of emergency powers of the States is authorized by international law in response to significant threats. However, any measure taken for limiting and suppressing information must be proportionate, non-discriminatory and crucial.

Refugees and detainees life conditions  

The States’ efforts to combat coronavirus may not be sufficient to protect the health of refugees and detainees in a different corner of the globe. There are serious concerns about the health conditions of these people, such as providing medical services. These vulnerable populations may be suffering from illnesses, mental and physical injuries, in addition to the serious medical complications related to COVID-19.

Refugees and detainees should have access to medical, social and health care on an equal basis with the general population. States have the responsibility to take all appropriate measures to prevent the risk of neglect and degrading treatment of these people. They should develop guidelines for proper hygiene and distance in this regard. In this perspective, access to health care should be equal and according to their medical criteria to ensure that the vulnerable people are not victims of medical discrimination.

Access to justice for domestic violence

Another actual impact of COVID-19 on human rights is increasing domestic violence in many countries. The limitation of police intervention, limited access to justice, the closure of the courts, the closure of services for victims and shelters and reduced access to reproductive health services are the main issues in gender-based violence against women and domestic violence in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This situation requires increasing advocacy and access to justice. In this context, the vulnerable populations such as immigrants, specifically undocumented immigrants, need in priority to have access to the justice and shelter during this crisis. For this reason, the justice system should find a solution to serve women at risk and ensure their accessibility to justice and legal protections.

To conclude, the world is experiencing an unprecedented crisis after World War II.

The Covid-19 pandemic is not only considered as a health crisis, but it is also a humanitarian, socio-economic, political and development crisis that threatens entire humanity.

The response to this crisis requires global efforts to take appropriate measures for reducing harmful effects on the security, health care, food, water and sanitation of all human life around the world. The actions taken in this situation should guarantee health care to everyone and protect human dignity. They also should be based on the pathway that will restore economic, development and peace in a sustainable approach. International human rights law guarantees every single individual the right to health and health care access. It obliges States to take measures to protect public health and to provide medical care to their citizens.

International human rights law is generally based on the inalienable, universal, interdependent and indivisible rights. It imposes obligations on the States, especially in times of crisis. Human rights are applying to everyone without any discrimination. Besides, the States should adopt a policy to ensure that all levels of government, including executive authority, apply the strategic, legal, regulatory, emergency and public health measures that they are adopting to manage the COVID-19 pandemic on a human rights-based approach.

International organizations, specifically the United Nations and the Security Council, have a crucial role to play for reinforcing the rules of international law or universal values such as the rule of law and respect to human rights.  The conflict between the protection of human rights and the defense of national security could be balanced by the application of the rule of law.

The universal principles of the charter of the UN[3], such as non-recourse to violence, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the establishment of peace by law, the fight against poverty, the respect for human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination are more significant in the context of COVID 19.


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. Abbas Poorhashemi is the President of the Canadian Institute for International Law Expertise (CIFILE). He is an International law expert. His teaching and research interests are in the areas of Public International Law, International Criminal Law and International Environmental Law. He has published many books and articles in each of these areas. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the CIFILE Journal of International Law (CJIL), Canada.


[1] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966,

[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

[3] Charter of the United Nations,

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

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.





While, the British mainstream media does not acknowledge that the mMRNA vaccine is a “killer  vaccine” resulting in countless deaths and injuries, they nonetheless question the legitimacy of the fake expert scientists including Neil Ferguson et al who are involved in fiddling the data and the concepts. See excerpts of the Daily Mail report below.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 14, 2021


Fury over Public Health England’s claim that vaccines have prevented 23.4million Covid cases as top experts say estimate is ‘away with the fairies’ and mathematically impossible

  • EXCLUSIVE: Professor David Livermore says modelling needs serious ‘review’
  • Government-run agency boasted vaccine rollout has prevented 23million cases 
  • Sources admit predicting how many cases there’d be without jabs is ‘impossible’ 

Public Health England was today accused of being ‘away with the fairies’ for claiming that Covid vaccines have prevented 23.4million infections.

The Government-run agency, which will be axed within a matter of weeks, yesterday released ‘remarkable’ updated estimates about how well the jabs have worked.

As well as drastically curbing the spread of the coronavirus, the PHE data suggested vaccines have saved more than 84,000 lives and prevented almost 67,000 hospital admissions.

But experts today questioned the maths behind the estimate.” (Mail Online, August 13, 2021)

link to complete article

Join Global Research’s campaign: #Yes, It’s A Killer Vaccine”

Consult the data on Vaccine casualties published on

Read Global Research’s daily coverage of the Covid-19 Crisis which is “Destroying People’s Lives” Worldwide.

Selected Articles: #Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”. They Are Killing Our Children

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Mainstream Media: “Fury over Public Health England’s estimate is ‘away with the fairies’ and mathematically impossible”

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


First published on May 18, 2021


According to Dr. Peter McCullough, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID-19 deaths. Early at-home treatment also minimizes the spread, as the amount of time you’re infectious can be reduced from two weeks to about four days

Despite being inexpensive and readily available, early treatments have all been censored and suppressed in order to secure a global mass vaccination campaign

More than 80 colleges and any number of employers are now implementing mandatory COVID vaccination. The only way for them to understand what the implications of that decision might be is to review the VAERS data. They’re not going to get any clues elsewhere, thanks to the universal suppression of information

An estimated 124 million Americans are now fully vaccinated against COVID-19. As of April 30, 2021, 3,837 died shortly after their COVID shots. That’s more than have died from all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years

In 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu. The entire program was canceled after reports of just 53 deaths


According to Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, COVID-19 vaccines are killing “huge numbers” of people and the government is simply ignoring it.

In a video interview with investigative journalist and founder of Liberty Sentinel, Alex Newman, McCullough says the U.S. government, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and health agencies around the world have all committed to vaccinating the global population while sitting on data showing the COVID-19 “vaccines” are turning out to be the most lethal vaccines ever created.

Safe Treatments Suppressed in Favor of Dangerous ‘Vaccines’

McCullough, who also has a master’s degree in public health, has provided testimony in three different Senate hearings, sharing the treatments he used to help patients recover from COVID-19 and avoid hospitalization. He summarizes his protocol in the interview.

These strategies are also detailed in “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” published in the January 2021 issue of the American Journal of Medicine.1 He was also a consulting editor of “A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.”2

During a recent Texas state Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing, McCullough noted that, according to available data, early treatment could have prevented up to 85% of COVID-19 deaths.3 Early at-home treatment also minimizes the spread, as the amount of time you’re infectious can be reduced from two weeks to about four days.

Yet, despite being inexpensive and readily available, early treatments have all been censored and suppressed, apparently in order to secure this global mass vaccination campaign. In fact, as McCullough notes, there’s been no clarified guidance on COVID treatment at all, not even hospital protocols.

The entire focus of our health agencies has been on masking, lockdowns and waiting for a gene therapy “vaccine.” The results have been devastating. Five months into the mass vaccination campaign, more than 10,000 in the U.S. and European Union have already died after getting the shots. Any other vaccine would have been pulled from the market by now.

Shocking Stats Show Just How Dangerous COVID ‘Vaccines’ Are

For example, in 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu. The entire program was canceled after reports of just 53 deaths, according to Fox News.4 Note: The number of deaths reported after the 1976 inoculation program varies from three to 53, depending on the source.5,6,7

Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,800 deaths8 after COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential. Think about that. Five months into the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, we’re looking at a death toll that is 7,000% greater than during the swine flu vaccination campaign, which was canceled after the vaccine was deemed too risky.

The COVID-19 “vaccine” is also on a level of magnitude more dangerous than the seasonal flu vaccine. As reported by McCullough, on average, there are 20 to 30 deaths reported following the seasonal flu vaccine, which is given to about 195 million Americans each year.9

Compare that to these novel COVID-19 gene therapies. So far, an estimated 124 million Americans are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and the death count is already at 3,837, as of April 30, 2021.10

Worse, it appears the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) is backlogged by about three months,11 so this is likely to be a serious undercount. Even if VAERS was fully caught up, it would be an undercount, as only 1%12,13 to 10%14 of adverse events after vaccination are ever reported. So, in reality, we might be looking at anywhere from 38,370 to 383,700 COVID vaccine-related deaths.

A third comparison can be made against vaccines as a whole. As reported by Tucker Carlson,15May 6, 2021, the COVID-19 shots have already resulted in more deaths than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years.

No Other Vaccine Has Harmed This Many

In a recent report, the Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body of health experts, similarly concluded that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The Committee received 288 reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination, 90% of which occurred within 10 days. According to this report (translated from Hebrew):16

“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year.

In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.

Amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.

Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+).

According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”

CDC Denies Lethal Risks

The contrast in the government’s response to COVID-19 vaccine deaths compared to the 1976 swine flu pandemic vaccination campaign is “alarming,” McCullough says.

February 19, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a statement saying there were “no safety problems” with Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA injections.17 Of the 113 deaths reported at that time, none was deemed to be related to the vaccines.

Then, in May 2021, after reviewing 1,600 deaths reported to VAERS with an unnamed group of U.S. Food and Drug Administration doctors, the CDC declared that none of the deaths was related to the vaccine — this despite 24% of deaths have occurred within 48 hours of injection, and 16% within 24 hours. The problem is that it would take several months to investigate that many deaths, so the likelihood that this was a thorough investigation is slim to none.

“It is impossible for unnamed regulatory doctors without any experience with COVID-19 to opine that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine,” McCullough tells Newman.

“So, I think this was effectively a scrubbing, like we’ve seen elsewhere … We’re sitting on, right now, the biggest number of vaccine deaths [and] there’s been tens of thousands of hospitalizations, all attributable to the vaccine, and [we’re still] going strong.”

The reason you’re not hearing any negative news about these “vaccines” is because major media networks and stakeholders in COVID-19 vaccines have formed a “trusted news credibility coalition” that seeks to prevent any negative information about COVID vaccines to get into the popular media “because they’re concerned about vaccine hesitancy,” McCullough says.

Suppression of Concerning VAERS Data Underway

As of April 30, 2021, 3,837 people have died, and 16,014 people have reported serious injuries and disabilities following COVID-19 injections.18 Among these deaths were two 15-year-olds and one 16-year-old. There were also 235 reports or miscarriage or premature birth as of April 30, 2021.19

You can check the latest statistics yourself using So-called fact checkers are of course working overtime to quell rumors about the trends showing in the VAERS data.

A recent fact-check article21 by The Post and Courier quotes unnamed, obscure experts stating that dying from the COVID-19 vaccine “isn’t an outcome people should worry about,” and that “despite misinformation shared on social media that sources a federal vaccines safety database” — meaning the VAERS database — “there is no proof of any patients having died as a result of taking a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States.”

PolitiFact also recently blew off VAERS as a “breeding ground for misinformation.”22 It warned social media posts reporting VAERS data are not to be trusted, as VAERS “reports are not verified” and “are not enough to determine whether a vaccine causes a particular adverse event.”

While both of those statements are true, PolitiFact fails to address the glaring problem that both the CDC and the FDA, which run VAERS jointly, are ignoring clearly emerging trends of harm. The Defender contacted the CDC March 8, 2021, with a list of questions about the vaccine injury reports, and as of May 11 — 64 days later — had received no reply.23

“[VAERS] is the only place where America, policy makers and others, are going to get a fair shake in understanding safety,” McCullough says. He points out that more than 80 colleges and any number of employers are now implementing mandatory COVID vaccination, and the only way for them to understand what the implications of that decision might be is to review the VAERS data. They’re not going to get any clues elsewhere, thanks to the universal suppression of information.

Overall, it appears the entire mission of VAERS and other such databases is being tossed aside. The system’s primary goal is to “detect new, unusual or rare vaccine adverse events” as a way to monitor the safety of vaccines.

As noted by McCullough, after five reported deaths where a medical product is suspected of being involved, the FDA will issue a black box warning — a notice to consumers warning them that the drug might cause death. At around 50 suspicious deaths, the product is pulled off the market.

The system is clearly failing if every single report of serious injury or death, including all the ones occurring within hours and in people with no underlying health problems, are simply written off as coincidence. It’s simply not believable.

EU Reports More Than 7,700 Deaths

Signs of lethal risks are also evident in data from the European Union, where the EudraVigilance system had received 7,766 reports of death after COVID vaccination as of April 17, 2021.24

Of these, Pfizer’s mRNA injection accounted for the largest number of deaths at 4,293, followed by Moderna with 2,094 deaths, AstraZeneca with 1,360 deaths and Johnson & Johnson with 19 deaths. As noted by McCullough:

“In my professional opinion, the safest vaccine on the market was the J&J vaccine, and that was pulled for very rare blood-clotting events. We had 7 million people vaccinated but the estimates are for the other two vaccines available [Pfizer and Moderna], the blood-clotting rates are probably 30 times that of J&J, and these others are going strong.”

UPDATE. Data for July 2021

According to the latest “official” figures for the EU, Britain and the US (combined), there are 31,389 Covid-19 vaccine related deaths and almost 5 million injuries. 

EU/EEA/Switzerland to 17 July 2021 – 18,928 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.8 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.

UK to 7 July 2021 -1,470 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 9 July 2021 – 10,991 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2 million injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 31,389 Covid-19 injection related deaths and almost 5 million injuries reported so far in July 2021.

These are official statistics based on a formal process of registration of deaths and “adverse effects”. The actual number of deaths and injuries triggered by the mRNA vaccine are much higher. Less than ten percent of the victims or families of the deceased will go through the tedious process of reporting vaccine related deaths and injuries to the national health authorities.

GR Editor, August 2021

Active Vaccine Surveillance Is Months Away

The FDA has also admitted that its analysis of vaccine safety data will be delayed for weeks, if not months. Right as the pandemic hit, they were in the process of transitioning from its Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) network, which was used to track side effects from the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, into a new system called the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety System (BEST).

In the meantime, they’re relying on a patchwork of passive reporting systems, including VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink and a phone-based self-reporting system called v-safe.

Since all of these are based on voluntary self-reporting, they can miss potentially lethal and unanticipated reactions. By the end of March 2021, only 6.4% of all vaccinated individuals had enrolled in v-safe, for example,25 which means a vast majority aren’t being surveilled for side effects.

While BEST will be an active surveillance system capable of examining data from 100 million people and actually compare rates of adverse events between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals to detect trends, we are months away from this kind of analysis.

In the meantime, people continue to die, and for no good reason, considering the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with seasonal influenza for most age groups.26,27,28,29,30

Signs of Malfeasance Abound

At this point, the list of evidences of malfeasance is exceedingly long. For a rundown of several key issues, see the peer-reviewed paper “COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During a Global Health Crisis — An Evidence-Based Position Paper to Ensure Ethical Conduct.”31

In it, the author substantiates McCullough’s allegations of rampant, wanton misconduct among public health officials, the active suppression of safe and effective treatments, and pandemic measures being implemented based on incorrect assumptions and outright lies.

As noted by McCullough in the featured interview, advertisements for COVID-19 vaccines were launched in violation of law before FDA licensing was complete. The initial studies had not even been completed. To this day, none of the COVID-19 “vaccines” has been licensed.

They only have emergency use authorization (EUA), and there’s no possible way for anyone to assure their safety. All of these facts are why they’re completely optional, and legally cannot yet be made mandatory, even though many schools and businesses are attempting to do that.

McCullough also stresses that in the COVID-19 vaccine trials, both the vaccinated groups and control groups had a less than 1% infection rate, which is about as low as it gets, in terms of risk. What this means is the overall public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination is also bound to be less than 1% — in other words, meaningless.

He also points out that around the world, we’re now seeing about 60% of active COVID-19 cases being in fully vaccinated individuals. In McCullough’s own practice, the COVID-19 patients he saw in the two weeks before this interview, about 60% were fully vaccinated, and there’s no difference in disease presentation between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Death Tally May Spike During Fall and Winter

While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is because one of the greatest wild cards of these vaccines is antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE).

I’ve detailed this issue in several articles, including “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System” and “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” In summary, ADE means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.32,33

Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem with these injections, then vaccinated individuals may in fact turn out to be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.

Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, a form of cell-based enhancement in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation. This condition may in some cases overlap with ADE, and can, like ADE, be life-threatening.34

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.

If you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:35

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.


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 Journal of Medicine January 2021; 134(1): 16-22

2 A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment (PDF)

3 April 8, 2021

4, 15 Fox News May 6, 2021

5 Los Angeles Times April 27, 2009

6 CDC January 2006

7 Time August 25, 2020

8, 10, 18, 19 The Defender May 7, 2021

9 Leo Hohmann April 30, 2021

11 Twitter Alex Berenson April 30, 2021

12 AHRQ December 7, 2007

13 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

14 BMJ 2005;330:433

16 Aletho News April 21, 2021

17 NBC News February 19, 2021


21 The Post and Courier April 12, 2021

22 Politifact May 3, 2021

23 The Defender May 11, 2021

24 The Defender April 29, 2021

25 Yahoo News May 2, 2021

26 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)

27 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

28 Breitbart May 7, 2020

29 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

30 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

31 COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During a Global Health Crisis — An Evidence-Based Position Paper to Ensure Ethical Conduct (PDF)

32, 34 PNAS April 14, 2020 117 (15) 8218-8221

33 Viral Immunology 2003;16(1):69-86

35 The Defender January 25, 2021

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

No Jab for Me – And Here Are 35 Reasons Why

August 14th, 2021 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

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.


Fist published by Global Research on  May 5, 2020

“Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccinations are exceedingly rare, but according to the blatantly pro-over-vaccination,

Big Pharma-funded CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 vaccine-related deaths, 1,091 permanent vaccine-related disabilities, 4,132 vaccine-related hospitalizations, and10,274 vaccine-related emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? You multiply those numbers by 100.” – William Christenson


“The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry.

“The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations.

“And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget.

“The HHS (US Health and Human Services) partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.

“HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on.

“For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr


Statements in these sites (this and this) are substantiated with facts that will stand in a court of law. Informed Consent requires a flow of information. Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents.


Did you know?

1. The FDA did not approve Moderna or Pfizer mRNA gene therapeutics they dubbed “vaccines”. It simply authorized them. Fauci confirms. “In the US, the FDA in its ambiguous statement  provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see here)

see below:

19 doctors warned the world of the dangers. AstraZeneca is being dropped by 24 countries.

Johnson & Johnson, a Viral Vector(1) ” injection” that was given Emergency Use Authorization on Feb. 27, 2021, was halted by several states due to the formation of blood clots. The CDC had confirmed. But distribution resumed after a 10 day pause.

The CDC also confirms(2) the Pfizer & Moderna jabs are the deadliest of all “vaccines”, also in a bar chart. 5 prominent doctors discuss how the Covid jab is a bioweapon.

2. The clinical trials will be completed in 2023, there are 12 vaccine companies ramping up their marketing, and you are the guinea pig.

3. The FDA & CDC have not revealed to the public over 20 adverse effects, including Death, related to Covid19 injections, which were discussed in an October 2020 meeting. 3,544 deaths from Covid19 injections are reported by the National Vaccine Information Center as at 4/23/2021, and one-third of the deaths occurred within 48 hours.

For clarification purposes in this article, Covid19, given that the virus has not been isolated, is regarded as an influenza variant, given the symptoms exhibited by patients. And, yes, people can die of influenza or the common cold. In fact, lungs of influenza patients can be more damaged than those of Covid patients.

Some will argue that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a Gain-of-Function lab. That is moot. The primary consideration is whether an experimental injection is warranted for a disease with a 99.9% survival rate.

I am for tried, true and tested (safe) vaccines. I am NOT for experimental gene therapeutics backed by disastrous animal studies, used on humans for the first time in history.

 4. The mRNA jab delivers a synthetic, inorganic molecule (medical device) that programs your cells to synthesize pathogens in the form of the spike protein that your immune system will constantly have to fight off for the rest of your life, according to experts such as Molecular Biologist & Immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill. She explains. Fauci confirms. Dr. Lee Merritt reconfirms.

Others call it Information Therapy that hacks the software of life, according to Moderna’s [Mode RNA] chief scientist. You essentially become a GMO. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny mapped eight mechanisms that can result in death by a Covid jab.

5. The mRNA jab does not prevent you from contracting Covid19 or from transmitting it. Dr. Steve Hotze elaborates. Fauci confirms. The CDC graph underscores that reality, proving these injections are ineffective and injection passports are totally useless.

87 million Americans have been subjected to injections as at 4/20/21, of which 7,157 have contracted Covid after beingvaccinated, resulting in 88 deaths. Also, an imperfect “vaccination” can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens, according to this NCGI article. A study on mice concludes that the spike protein from a “vaccination” can cause lung damage.

Did you also know?

6. The CDC inflated the death rate for Covid19 – that was not isolated – by instructing medical practitioners in its March 24, 2020 directive to ascribe the cause of death as Covid19 for all deaths, irrespective if patients were tested positive for Covid19 or if they had other comorbidities, so as to ramp up the fear, and doctors have publicly stated they are being pressured to mark Covid19 on death certificates. Here is a list:

This missstep by the CDC contravenes Federal Regulations, according to IPAK. Each Federal agency is required to submit a formal change proposal to the Federal Register before enacting their proposed changes. A 60-day public comment and peer-review process ensues before the changes can be made.

The fact is that 60,000 Americans have been dying weekly, consistently, before and after the covid scare – more data – while deaths by influenza and other diseases have plummeted.

 7. The CDC later admitted that 94% of deaths had underlying conditions. That means that of the 527,000 deaths attributed to the influenza variant masked as SARS-CoV-2 only 6% were actually caused directly by Covid19, or 31,620. That brings the true case fatality rate to 0.12% out of the 27 million cases.

 8. The survival rate for Covid19 is, therefore, roughly 99.9%. When using the state population as the denominator, the death rate is even lower, ranging from 36 to 247 deaths per 100,000. As at March 19, 2021, even with the doctored numbers and faulty tests, the CDC arrived at the following survival rates:

  • Ages 0-17 99.998%
  • Ages 18-49 99.95%
  • Ages 50-64 99.4%
  • Ages 65+ 91%

9. The CDC lumped pneumonia, influenza, and Covid19 into a new epidemic it called PIC in order to inflate Covid19 deaths.

The CDC stats for week of July 3, 2020 confirm that pneumonia and influenza combine with Covid to inflate the death rate. The Feb. 5, 2021 report does the same. The obfuscation is underscored in the search results page, where only “(P&I)” is mentioned, but PIC graphs appear upon clicking the links. Deaths by influenza have dropped from 61,000 in 2018 to 22,000 in 2020, while medical malpractice is the third leading cause of deaths in the US.

10. Hospitals are paid $13,000 for every Covid19 admission, and $39,000 for every patient that is put on a ventilator, on average. More proof doctors and nurses have orders to place on ventilators patients who tested negative, effectively killing them.

Are you aware that…

11. The PCR tests do not detect SARS-CoV-2 particles, but particles from any number of viruses you might have contracted in the past, and that a lawsuit for crimes against humanity is being launched by a German attorney for this fraud. Even Fauci admits PCR tests don’t work. The WHO backs him up.

In this CDC document, testing guidelines state that false negatives and positives are possible – page 39. The PCR test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens – page 40.

But most importantly, on page 42, SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated in the first instance: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA“.

Neither the CDC can provide samples of SARS-CoV-2, nor can Stanford and Cornell labs, and in a CNN interview Fauci said he was not getting tested and there is no need to test asymptomatic people. He reiterates that asymptomatic people have never been the driving force of a pandemic. Again, the WHO backs him up.

12. There are class action lawsuits in the works, naming Anthony Fauci as defendant, amongst others. Here’s a partial list:

And we’re just getting warmed up. If Israeli citizens have brought their government to the International Criminal Court for Crimes Against Humanity, alleging they are being coerced into taking an inadequately tested, experimental COVID injection by Pfizer, in contravention of the Nuremberg Code, then the citizens of any state (West Virginia comes to mind where young people are bribed with $100 to take the jab) have that same right and obligation.

13. Therapeutics and prophylactics for coronaviruses, like Hydroxychloroquine, have been approved in the WHO, CDC and NIH websites.

But, suddenly in 2020 they were banned. Why? Because, according to FDA rules only when there are no alternative therapeutics, can untested vaccines be cleared for Emergency Use Authorization. In 2020, the Canadian company, Apotex, was giving HCQ away. Even after the American Journal of Medicine approved the use of HCQ for Outpatients, HCQ is nowhere to be found in the US. Now, doctors are pleading that Ivermectin be used as a safe therapeutic.

Doctors in India and the UK speak out. Costa Rica uses HCQ extensively, while Novartis donates it to Mexico. In India doctors are prescribing Ziverdo kits.

14. Front Line Doctors who try to explain the benefits of proven therapeutics are being silenced, and some have had their license suspended. A concise summary by Dr. Simone Gold, who is also an attorney and founder of America’s Front Line Doctors, is a must watch.

As well, the British Medical Journal has broken rank and is citing corruption and suppression of science. The World Doctors Alliance joins the resistance. In Australia, the Covid Medical Network represents senior medical professionals doing battle.

15. Fauci and the CDC have flip-flopped on masks, contaminated surfaces, asymptomatic spread, testing, and have only recently acknowledged that herd immunity is achieved when antibodies are spread by those who beat the disease (the 99.9%), but still recommend social distancing, only now from 6 feet to 3 feet, resulting in this lockdown map.

Speaking of herd immunity, the WHO changed its June 7, 2020 definition from:

“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection” to:

“Herd immunity, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it” in Nov. 13, 2020.

But, it again reversed its position in Dec. 2020, with this inane statement:

“Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease, but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission”(4).

And they keep moving the goal posts. Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women… but now the CDC is pushing pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent without a second thought.

The CDC has played dumb about the high 37 to 40 cycle thresholds used for COVID PCR testing yielding 85-90% false positives. But, now, it readily accepts the lower threshold of 28 cycles for post-vaccine testing.

… and that

16. Injuries and deaths by mRNA jabs keep rising. VAERS reports 12,619 serious injuries as at 4/23/21. In the first quarter of 2021 there has been a 6000% increase in deaths by injections from the same period a year ago. Graphically, the jab looks more like a stiff upper cut, to quote attorney Rocco Galati. And that’s if, according to a Harvard Study, only 1% of vaccine related deaths are being reported.

17. The CDC at one time recommended DDT for in home use, and used the same fear tactics to sell vaccines for H1N1.

18. Documents prove that the media was to be the key player in creating the hype leading up to the promotion of vaccines, that a VACCINATE WITH CONFIDENCE paper by the CDC exists, along with its British equivalent, and that lifting lockdowns – on condition of vaccination – is used as a carrot to get people to accept the jab.

19. Politicians are caught on camera talking about the theater of wearing masks, and the NCBI, a division of the NIH, published a paper on the complete ineffectiveness of masks. Even the CDC warns of the dangers of masks, as do these studies on Mask Induced Exhaustion Syndrome MIES.

 20. The CDC owns the patent for the coronavirus that is transmitted to humans; also, a patent for a System & Method to test for Covid19 filed in 2015, corroborated here, and Covid19 test kits were being shipped around the world in 2018.

… or that

21. The Covid19 INJECTION was developed in just a few hours.

22. Vaccine companies cannot be sued for injuries.

23. Bill Gates, who invested $10 Billion into vaccines, boasts of how he injects kids with genetically modified organisms.

24. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccine passports. Parenthetically, various domain names for “vaccinepassport” were filed in 2016 by an entity in Milan, Italy, and that there are people who cannot take vaccines because of medical contraindications. A vaccine passport would discriminate against these people as they attempt to go about their lives, in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12101)..

25. Bill Gates is on record pushing for vaccines to lower the world population by 10% to 15%, and a call has been made for his arrest and trial at the International Criminal Court

Finally, did you know?

26. Covid variant injections are to be marketed without safety trials, Fauci confirmed it, and that antibodies/antigens to SARS-CoV-2 are found in saliva, making the use of masks counterproductive in achieving herd immunity.

27. The CDC, that props itself up with statements like:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the agency Americans trust with their lives. As a global leader in public health, CDC is the nation’s premier health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency. Whether we are protecting the American people from public health threats, researching emerging diseases, or mobilizing public health programs with our domestic and international partners, we rely on our employees to make a real difference in the health and well-being of people here and around the world.”

buys and resells injections at a markup, about $4.6 Billion worth every year, and owns over 20 vaccine patents – according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and is listed on Dun & Bradstreet. Fauci personally owns 1000 patents.

28. The consent forms in hospitals disguise vaccines as “biogenics”, and blood brokers have paid up to $1,000 for blood samples of recovered Covid19 people.

29. It’s against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy. Federal law prohibits employers and others from using vaccines under EUA as a condition of employment. A Nevada attorney is ready to do the battle. Each state has its own unique provisions for refusing a vaccine on medical, religious or philosophical grounds.

30. Donald Trump glories in the fact that he pushed Warp Speed and urges his supporters to take the jab, while Biden gloatsthat he ordered 100 million doses. Same dung – different odor

… or that

31. Time, again and again the WHO has discouraged the wearing of masks by healthy individuals, let alone children.

32. Several “simulations” of a pandemic were held in:

  • May 2018 Clade X by Johns Hopkins University
  • September 2019. The WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (in another supposed simulation) included as one of its progress indicators the release of two lethal pathogens by September 2020. See pg 39
  • 2018. Bill Gates’ INSTITUTE FOR DISEASE MODELING released a video modeling a pandemic starting at Wuhan, China
  • October 2019. Bill Gates, sponsored a Global Pandemic Exercise Event 201, video. Fauci, of course, sits in the Leadership Council of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has contributed over $3.5 million to Fauci’s NIH,

33. The Pfizer, Moderna and J&J jabs were developed using fetal cell lines, that is, cells grown in labs originally obtained from aborted fetuses decades ago. The argument used by pro-vaxers is that these are not the original cells, but descendants or duplicates of the originals. The medical term varies depending on the aborted fetus’ number and organ . You have a right to decline any vaccine that was developed with or contains fetal cell lines, based on your religious or philosophical beliefs.

34. Lockdowns have had no effect on the death rate. Here’s another report. And here we can see how Covid won’t breach Michigan’s southern border.

35. On March 2020, the British Government discussed tactics it would use to ensure citizens complied with the loss of their rights and freedoms and these have included –

  • Using media to increase the sense of personal threat
  • Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others
  • Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors
  • Using social disapproval for those who do not comply

Here is the document, and the woman the NHS hired to fiddle with the death numbers. Not to be outdone, Trudeau boasts how much he pays the media to sell his propaganda that presciently reported in April, 2021 a 4th wave, while the German Minister of Interior pressured epidemologists to create the fear that would necessitate lockdowns.

So your employer backs you into a corner. Get the jab or quit. What do you do?

Here’s what I would do:

1. Demand that the ‘jab or quit’ proposition be put in writing.

2. Explain that irrespective of whether it’s a government or a corporation, any entity that makes experimental vaccinations a condition of employment – or of doing business – engages in the practice of forced vaccinations, which is in violation of the Nuremberg code, especially experimental vaccinations that are still undergoing clinical trials scheduled to end in 2023.

3. I would pull out my card ask the questions in it, leave the card with instructions to relay answers to me in writing

4. I would inform the employer that lawyers are filing crimes against humanity lawsuits, and that I would be consulting an attorney

This is just what I would do. I’m not giving anyone legal advice.

Find attorneys in your state:


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 Kohls practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career prior to his retirement in 2008, primarily helping patients who had become addicted to cocktails of psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His column often deals with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing food industry. Those four sociopathic entities can combine to even more adversely affect the physical, mental, spiritual and economic health of the recipients of the vaccines, drugs, medical treatments and the eaters of the tasty and ubiquitous “Franken Foods” – particularly when they are consumed in combinations, doses and potencies that have never been tested for safety or long-term effectiveness.

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns are archived at:;;;; and

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

The Evils of Big Pharma Exposed

August 14th, 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 Archives, English
  • Comments Off on The Evils of Big Pharma Exposed

U.S. Out of Africa: U.S. Imperialism in Somalia

August 14th, 2021 by Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar

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 US Africa Command confirmed that it carried out its third airstrike allegedly against an Islamic resistance movement in less than two weeks. The airstrikes took place on August 1, July 23, and July 20. This is a continuation of the broader shadow war on Somalia in which the U.S. conducted 63 strikes in 2020.

The U.S. mainstream media and politicians blame the U.S. shadow war in Somalia on Al-Shabaab, an Islamist insurgent group that controls much of southern Somalia, but the main culprit is the United States government that led a military invasion of the country from 1992 to 93 in a nefariously dubbed Operation Restore Hope. Ever since, Somalia has been in a perpetual state of war, and the U.S. has continued with destabilization efforts since 1992.

Somalia’s only hope for sustainable peace and development lies within the national unity of its people absent the tutelage of the US.

AFRICOM Watch Bulletin talks with Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar, a long-time radio journalist, a conflict analyst, peace researcher, and an international writer on politics, sports, and lifestyle. Farid is a recipient of the prestigious international scholarly award — the Golden Key International Honour Society Award and the New Pioneers Award. The University of Toronto named Farid the Silcox Scholar in Public Administration.


AFRICOM Watch Bulletin: Would you be able to give some historical context to U.S. imperialism in Somalia?

Farid Abdi Mohamed Omar: Somalia has endured a long history of imperialism both at the hands of European colonial powers and the U.S.  But the Somali people have always demonstrated their strong determination to resist Western imperialism, and, in 1960, European colonizers were eventually defeated when Somalia attained its national independence.

In the early 1980s, U.S. imperialism gradually took hold in Somalia as the U.S. administration propped up the Barre military dictatorship through financial aid and the massive transfer of arms.

Working in collusion with Barre, U.S. destabilization in this era was aimed at suppressing and dividing the Somali people, thereby making Washington directly responsible for state collapse in Somalia.

AWB: Can you speak to the end of the Islamic Courts Union?

FO: Towards the end of 2006, U.S.-backed Ethiopian forces, with the direct support of American air power, rolled into Somalia to oust the Union of Islamic Courts, of which Al Shabaab was a key member, that had restored peace and security in much of southern Somalia during their brief reign of power. The illegal invasion and occupation of Somalia installed a puppet war-lord regime, marking a new phase of U.S. imperialism in Somalia, plunging the war-torn nation into further anarchy.

It is also part of a U.S. militarist agenda meant to complete the unfinished business of the so-called “Operation Restore Hope,” which went up in smoke in 1993 when nationalist forces defeated and humiliated U.S. forces that occupied Somalia.

AWB: What is appealing about Somalia for U.S. imperialism?

FO: The primary objective of the U.S. hegemonic designs in Somalia is the unfettered access to Somalia’s untapped but massive oil reserves and vast uranium deposits.  In geopolitical terms, Somalia is strategically located because it lies at the confluence where the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, and the Red Sea converge.  It oversees the daily passage of oil tankers that go through the Suez Canal while its close proximity to the Middle East and Sudan makes it ideal for the U.S. to launch military strikes against a perceived “Islamist threat” in the region.

Worse still, the U.S. planned to use the strategic City of Berbera as the base of its newly launched AFRICOM (Africa Command), a Pentagon-orchestrated scheme aimed at completing the militarization of the entire African continent.

AWB: How have the Somali people resisted?

FO: Just as the Somali people rallied to defeat U.S. imperialism in 1993, Somali resistance against the ongoing occupation will stop at nothing short of stamping out the remaining vestiges of imperialism

As well, the Somali Diaspora has stepped up its peaceful resistance to U.S. imperialism, and this is evident in the recent well-attended Somalia Peace rallies organized by the Somali Canadian Diaspora Alliance (SDA).  The SDA has also built alliances with like-minded organizations and other solidarity groups fighting against war and occupation in other parts of the world.

In fighting the occupation, and by forging ahead to rebuild a united, peaceful Somalia, an umbrella organization bringing together eight progressive Somali Diaspora organizations from both Canada and the United States was formed in November during a major conference held in Virginia.

The mandate of the new organization known as Somali Cause, is to demand an immediate end to the Ethiopian occupation and rampant war crimes, promote an all-inclusive national reconciliation process, and call for the establishment of an International War Crimes Tribunal for Somalia.

The main objective is to forge a united front to peacefully free Somalia from occupation and oppression, and to bring lasting freedom and democracy to the Somali people.

AWB: Thank you for your time and analysis!


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.

Among Global Research’s most popular 2020 articles
First published in November 2015

GR Editor’s Note


Let us put this in historical perspective: the commemoration of the War to End All Wars  acknowledges that 15 million lives were lost in the course of World War I (1914-18).

The loss of life in the second World War (1939-1945) was on a much large scale, when compared to World War I: 60 million lives both military and civilian were lost during World War II. (Four times those killed during World War I).

The largest WWII casualties  were China and the Soviet Union, 26 million in the Soviet Union,  China estimates its losses at approximately 20,000,000 deaths.

Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) which lost a large share of their population during WWII are now under the Biden-Harris administration categorized as “enemies of America”, which are threatening the Western World.  

A so-called “preemptive war” against China and Russia is currently contemplated. 

Germany and Austria lost approximately 8 million people during WWII, Japan lost more than 2.5 million people. The US and Britain respectively lost more than 400,000 lives. 

This carefully researched article by James A. Lucas  documents the more than 20 million lives lost resulting from US led wars, military coups and intelligence ops carried out in the wake of what is euphemistically called the “post-war era” (1945- ).

The extensive loss of life in Lebanon,  Syria, Yemen and Libya is not included in this study.

Continuous US led warfare (1945- ): there was no “post-war era.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 2021, August 2021


After the catastrophic attacks of September 11 2001 monumental sorrow and a feeling of desperate and understandable anger began to permeate the American psyche. A few people at that time attempted to promote a balanced perspective by pointing out that the United States had also been responsible for causing those same feelings in people in other nations, but they produced hardly a ripple. Although Americans understand in the abstract the wisdom of people around the world empathizing with the suffering of one another, such a reminder of wrongs committed by our nation got little hearing and was soon overshadowed by an accelerated “war on terrorism.”

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.

And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.

It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000.

Comments on Gathering These Numbers

Generally speaking, the much smaller number of Americans who have died is not included in this study, not because they are not important, but because this report focuses on the impact of U.S. actions on its adversaries.

An accurate count of the number of deaths is not easy to achieve, and this collection of data was undertaken with full realization of this fact. These estimates will probably be revised later either upward or downward by the reader and the author. But undoubtedly the total will remain in the millions.

The difficulty of gathering reliable information is shown by two estimates in this context. For several years I heard statements on radio that three million Cambodians had been killed under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. However, in recent years the figure I heard was one million. Another example is that the number of persons estimated to have died in Iraq due to sanctions after the first U.S. Iraq War was over 1 million, but in more recent years, based on a more recent study, a lower estimate of around a half a million has emerged.

Often information about wars is revealed only much later when someone decides to speak out, when more secret information is revealed due to persistent efforts of a few, or after special congressional committees make reports

Both victorious and defeated nations may have their own reasons for underreporting the number of deaths. Further, in recent wars involving the United States it was not uncommon to hear statements like “we do not do body counts” and references to “collateral damage” as a euphemism for dead and wounded. Life is cheap for some, especially those who manipulate people on the battlefield as if it were a chessboard.

To say that it is difficult to get exact figures is not to say that we should not try. Effort was needed to arrive at the figures of six million Jews killed during WWII, but knowledge of that number now is widespread and it has fueled the determination to prevent future holocausts. That struggle continues.

The author can be contacted at [email protected]



The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)


An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa1,2,3). (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 (4,5,6)

Argentina: See South America: Operation Condor

Bangladesh: See Pakistan


Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

Also see: See South America: Operation Condor

Brazil: See South America: Operation Condor


U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge – a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam latrer invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge. (1,2,3)

Also see Vietnam


An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.


The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.

What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.” (2,3,4,5)

Also see South America: Operation Condor

China An estimated 900,000 Chinese died during the Korean War.

For more information, See: Korea.


One estimate is that 67,000 deaths have occurred from the 1960s to recent years due to support by the U.S. of Colombian state terrorism. (1)

According to a 1994 Amnesty International report, more than 20,000 people were killed for political reasons in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies. Amnesty alleged that “U.S.- supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit abuses in the name of “counter-insurgency.” (2) In 2002 another estimate was made that 3,500 people die each year in a U.S. funded civilian war in Colombia. (3)

In 1996 Human Rights Watch issued a report “Assassination Squads in Colombia” which revealed that CIA agents went to Colombia in 1991 to help the military to train undercover agents in anti-subversive activity. (4,5)

In recent years the U.S. government has provided assistance under Plan Colombia. The Colombian government has been charged with using most of the funds for destruction of crops and support of the paramilitary group.


In the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 18, 1961 which ended after 3 days, 114 of the invading force were killed, 1,189 were taken prisoners and a few escaped to waiting U.S. ships. (1) The captured exiles were quickly tried, a few executed and the rest sentenced to thirty years in prison for treason. These exiles were released after 20 months in exchange for $53 million in food and medicine.

Some people estimate that the number of Cuban forces killed range from 2,000, to 4,000. Another estimate is that 1,800 Cuban forces were killed on an open highway by napalm. This appears to have been a precursor of the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991 when U.S. forces mercilessly annihilated large numbers of Iraqis on a highway. (2)

Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire)

The beginning of massive violence was instigated in this country in 1879 by its colonizer King Leopold of Belgium. The Congo’s population was reduced by 10 million people over a period of 20 years which some have referred to as “Leopold’s Genocide.” (1) The U.S. has been responsible for about a third of that many deaths in that nation in the more recent past. (2)

In 1960 the Congo became an independent state with Patrice Lumumba being its first prime minister. He was assassinated with the CIA being implicated, although some say that his murder was actually the responsibility of Belgium. (3) But nevertheless, the CIA was planning to kill him. (4) Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

Much of the time in recent years there has been a civil war within the Democratic Republic of Congo, fomented often by the U.S. and other nations, including neighboring nations. (5)

In April 1977, Newsday reported that the CIA was secretly supporting efforts to recruit several hundred mercenaries in the U.S. and Great Britain to serve alongside Zaire’s army. In that same year the U.S. provided $15 million of military supplies to the Zairian President Mobutu to fend off an invasion by a rival group operating in Angola. (6)

In May 1979, the U.S. sent several million dollars of aid to Mobutu who had been condemned 3 months earlier by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations. (7) During the Cold War the U.S. funneled over 300 million dollars in weapons into Zaire (8,9) $100 million in military training was provided to him. (2) In 2001 it was reported to a U.S. congressional committee that American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Sr., were stoking the Congo for monetary gains. There is an international battle over resources in that country with over 125 companies and individuals being implicated. One of these substances is coltan, which is used in the manufacture of cell phones. (2)

Dominican Republic

In 1962, Juan Bosch became president of the Dominican Republic. He advocated such programs as land reform and public works programs. This did not bode well for his future relationship with the U.S., and after only 7 months in office, he was deposed by a CIA coup. In 1965 when a group was trying to reinstall him to his office President Johnson said, “This Bosch is no good.” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Mann replied “He’s no good at all. If we don’t get a decent government in there, Mr. President, we get another Bosch. It’s just going to be another sinkhole.” Two days later a U.S. invasion started and 22,000 soldiers and marines entered the Dominican Republic and about 3,000 Dominicans died during the fighting. The cover excuse for doing this was that this was done to protect foreigners there. (1,2,3,4)

East Timor

In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. This incursion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia where they had given President Suharto permission to use American arms, which under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN. said that the U.S. wanted “things to turn out as they did.” (1,2) The result was an estimated 200,000 dead out of a population of 700,000. (1,2)

Sixteen years later, on November 12, 1991, two hundred and seventeen East Timorese protesters in Dili, many of them children, marching from a memorial service, were gunned down by Indonesian Kopassus shock troops who were headed by U.S.- trained commanders Prabowo Subianto (son in law of General Suharto) and Kiki Syahnakri. Trucks were seen dumping bodies into the sea. (5)

El Salvador

The civil war from 1981 to1992 in El Salvador was financed by $6 billion in U.S. aid given to support the government in its efforts to crush a movement to bring social justice to the people in that nation of about 8 million people. (1)
During that time U.S. military advisers demonstrated methods of torture on teenage prisoners, according to an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran army published in the New York Times. This former member of the Salvadoran National Guard testified that he was a member of a squad of twelve who found people who they were told were guerillas and tortured them. Part of the training he received was in torture at a U.S. location somewhere in Panama. (2)

About 900 villagers were massacred in the village of El Mozote in 1981. Ten of the twelve El Salvadoran government soldiers cited as participating in this act were graduates of the School of the Americas operated by the U.S. (2) They were only a small part of about 75,000 people killed during that civil war. (1)

According to a 1993 United Nations’ Truth Commission report, over 96 % of the human rights violations carried out during the war were committed by the Salvadoran army or the paramilitary deaths squads associated with the Salvadoran army. (3)

That commission linked graduates of the School of the Americas to many notorious killings. The New York Times and the Washington Post followed with scathing articles. In 1996, the White House Oversight Board issued a report that supported many of the charges against that school made by Rev. Roy Bourgeois, head of the School of the Americas Watch. That same year the Pentagon released formerly classified reports indicating that graduates were trained in killing, extortion, and physical abuse for interrogations, false imprisonment and other methods of control. (4)


The CIA began to destabilize Grenada in 1979 after Maurice Bishop became president, partially because he refused to join the quarantine of Cuba. The campaign against him resulted in his overthrow and the invasion by the U.S. of Grenada on October 25, 1983, with about 277 people dying. (1,2) It was fallaciously charged that an airport was being built in Grenada that could be used to attack the U.S. and it was also erroneously claimed that the lives of American medical students on that island were in danger.


In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala. He appropriated some unused land operated by the United Fruit Company and compensated the company. (1,2) That company then started a campaign to paint Arbenz as a tool of an international conspiracy and hired about 300 mercenaries who sabotaged oil supplies and trains. (3) In 1954 a CIA-orchestrated coup put him out of office and he left the country. During the next 40 years various regimes killed thousands of people.

In 1999 the Washington Post reported that an Historical Clarification Commission concluded that over 200,000 people had been killed during the civil war and that there had been 42,000 individual human rights violations, 29,000 of them fatal, 92% of which were committed by the army. The commission further reported that the U.S. government and the CIA had pressured the Guatemalan government into suppressing the guerilla movement by ruthless means. (4,5)

According to the Commission between 1981 and 1983 the military government of Guatemala – financed and supported by the U.S. government – destroyed some four hundred Mayan villages in a campaign of genocide. (4)
One of the documents made available to the commission was a 1966 memo from a U.S. State Department official, which described how a “safe house” was set up in the palace for use by Guatemalan security agents and their U.S. contacts. This was the headquarters for the Guatemalan “dirty war” against leftist insurgents and suspected allies. (2)


From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was ruled by Papa Doc Duvalier and later by his son. During that time their private terrorist force killed between 30,000 and 100,000 people. (1) Millions of dollars in CIA subsidies flowed into Haiti during that time, mainly to suppress popular movements, (2) although most American military aid to the country, according to William Blum, was covertly channeled through Israel.

Reportedly, governments after the second Duvalier reign were responsible for an even larger number of fatalities, and the influence on Haiti by the U.S., particularly through the CIA, has continued. The U.S. later forced out of the presidential office a black Catholic priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, even though he was elected with 67% of the vote in the early 1990s. The wealthy white class in Haiti opposed him in this predominantly black nation, because of his social programs designed to help the poor and end corruption. (3) Later he returned to office, but that did not last long. He was forced by the U.S. to leave office and now lives in South Africa.


In the 1980s the CIA supported Battalion 316 in Honduras, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of its citizens. Torture equipment and manuals were provided by CIA Argentinean personnel who worked with U.S. agents in the training of the Hondurans. Approximately 400 people lost their lives. (1,2) This is another instance of torture in the world sponsored by the U.S. (3)

Battalion 316 used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations in the 1980s. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves. Declassified documents and other sources show that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy knew of numerous crimes, including murder and torture, yet continued to support Battalion 316 and collaborate with its leaders.” (4)

Honduras was a staging ground in the early 1980s for the Contras who were trying to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. John D. Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State, was our embassador when our military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to $77.4 million per year. Negroponte denies having had any knowledge of these atrocities during his tenure. However, his predecessor in that position, Jack R. Binns, had reported in 1981 that he was deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations. (5)


In 1956 Hungary, a Soviet satellite nation, revolted against the Soviet Union. During the uprising broadcasts by the U.S. Radio Free Europe into Hungary sometimes took on an aggressive tone, encouraging the rebels to believe that Western support was imminent, and even giving tactical advice on how to fight the Soviets. Their hopes were raised then dashed by these broadcasts which cast an even darker shadow over the Hungarian tragedy.“ (1) The Hungarian and Soviet death toll was about 3,000 and the revolution was crushed. (2)


In 1965, in Indonesia, a coup replaced General Sukarno with General Suharto as leader. The U.S. played a role in that change of government. Robert Martens,a former officer in the U.S. embassy in Indonesia, described how U.S. diplomats and CIA officers provided up to 5,000 names to Indonesian Army death squads in 1965 and checked them off as they were killed or captured. Martens admitted that “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.” (1,2,3) Estimates of the number of deaths range from 500,000 to 3 million. (4,5,6)
From 1993 to 1997 the U.S. provided Jakarta with almost $400 million in economic aid and sold tens of million of dollars of weaponry to that nation. U.S. Green Berets provided training for the Indonesia’s elite force which was responsible for many of atrocities in East Timor. (3)


Iran lost about 262,000 people in the war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988. (1) See Iraq for more information about that war.

On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy ship, the Vincennes, was operating withing Iranian waters providing military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. During a battle against Iranian gunboats it fired two missiles at an Iranian Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilian on board were killed. (2,3)


A. The Iraq-Iran War lasted from 1980 to 1988 and during that time there were about 105,000 Iraqi deaths according to the Washington Post. (1,2)

According to Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, the U.S. provided the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits and helped Iraq in other ways such as making sure that Iraq had military equipment including biological agents This surge of help for Iraq came as Iran seemed to be winning the war and was close to Basra. (1) The U.S. was not adverse to both countries weakening themselves as a result of the war, but it did not appear to want either side to win.

B: The U.S.-Iraq War and the Sanctions Against Iraq extended from 1990 to 2003.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the U.S. responded by demanding that Iraq withdraw, and four days later the U.N. levied international sanctions.

Iraq had reason to believe that the U.S. would not object to its invasion of Kuwait, since U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had no position on the dispute that his country had with Kuwait. So the green light was given, but it seemed to be more of a trap.

As a part of the public relations strategy to energize the American public into supporting an attack against Iraq the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. falsely testified before Congress that Iraqi troops were pulling the plugs on incubators in Iraqi hospitals. (1) This contributed to a war frenzy in the U.S.

The U.S. air assault started on January 17, 1991 and it lasted for 42 days. On February 23 President H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. ground assault to begin. The invasion took place with much needless killing of Iraqi military personnel. Only about 150 American military personnel died compared to about 200,000 Iraqis. Some of the Iraqis were mercilessly killed on the Highway of Death and about 400 tons of depleted uranium were left in that nation by the U.S. (2,3)

Other deaths later were from delayed deaths due to wounds, civilians killed, those killed by effects of damage of the Iraqi water treatment facilities and other aspects of its damaged infrastructure and by the sanctions.

In 1995 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. reported that U.N sanctions against on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000 children since 1990. (5)

Leslie Stahl on the TV Program 60 Minutes in 1996 mentioned to Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think is worth it.” (4)

In 1999 UNICEF reported that 5,000 children died each month as a result of the sanction and the War with the U.S. (6)

Richard Garfield later estimated that the more likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000 – double those of the previous decade. Garfield estimated that the numbers to be 350,000 through 2000 (based in part on result of another study). (7)

However, there are limitations to his study. His figures were not updated for the remaining three years of the sanctions. Also, two other somewhat vulnerable age groups were not studied: young children above the age of five and the elderly.

All of these reports were considerable indicators of massive numbers of deaths which the U.S. was aware of and which was a part of its strategy to cause enough pain and terror among Iraqis to cause them to revolt against their government.

C: Iraq-U.S. War started in 2003 and has not been concluded

Just as the end of the Cold War emboldened the U.S. to attack Iraq in 1991 so the attacks of September 11, 2001 laid the groundwork for the U.S. to launch the current war against Iraq. While in some other wars we learned much later about the lies that were used to deceive us, some of the deceptions that were used to get us into this war became known almost as soon as they were uttered. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we were not trying to promote democracy, we were not trying to save the Iraqi people from a dictator.

The total number of Iraqi deaths that are a result of our current Iraq against Iraq War is 654,000, of which 600,000 are attributed to acts of violence, according to Johns Hopkins researchers. (1,2)

Since these deaths are a result of the U.S. invasion, our leaders must accept responsibility for them.

Israeli-Palestinian War

About 100,000 to 200,000 Israelis and Palestinians, but mostly the latter, have been killed in the struggle between those two groups. The U.S. has been a strong supporter of Israel, providing billions of dollars in aid and supporting its possession of nuclear weapons. (1,2)

Korea, North and South

The Korean War started in 1950 when, according to the Truman administration, North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th. However, since then another explanation has emerged which maintains that the attack by North Korea came during a time of many border incursions by both sides. South Korea initiated most of the border clashes with North Korea beginning in 1948. The North Korea government claimed that by 1949 the South Korean army committed 2,617 armed incursions. It was a myth that the Soviet Union ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. (1,2)

The U.S. started its attack before a U.N. resolution was passed supporting our nation’s intervention, and our military forces added to the mayhem in the war by introducing the use of napalm. (1)

During the war the bulk of the deaths were South Koreans, North Koreans and Chinese. Four sources give deaths counts ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 million. (3,4,5,6) Another source gives a total of 4 million but does not identify to which nation they belonged. (7)

John H. Kim, a U.S. Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated in an article that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians – both South and North Koreans – at many locations throughout Korea…It is reported that the U.S. dropped some 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 tons of napalm bombs, during the Korean War.” It is presumed that this total does not include Chinese casualties.

Another source states a total of about 500,000 who were Koreans and presumably only military. (8,9)


From 1965 to 1973 during the Vietnam War the U.S. dropped over two million tons of bombs on Laos – more than was dropped in WWII by both sides. Over a quarter of the population became refugees. This was later called a “secret war,” since it occurred at the same time as the Vietnam War, but got little press. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Branfman make the only estimate that I am aware of , stating that hundreds of thousands died. This can be interpeted to mean that at least 200,000 died. (1,2,3)

U.S. military intervention in Laos actually began much earlier. A civil war started in the 1950s when the U.S. recruited a force of 40,000 Laotians to oppose the Pathet Lao, a leftist political party that ultimately took power in 1975.

Also See Vietnam


Between 8,000 and 12,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996. The death rate, according to Foreign Policy in Focus, sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns (950 rpm) and U.S. advisers. Nepal is 85 percent rural and badly in need of land reform. Not surprisingly 42 % of its people live below the poverty level. (1,2)

In 2002, after another civil war erupted, President George W. Bush pushed a bill through Congress authorizing $20 million in military aid to the Nepalese government. (3)


In 1981 the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government in Nicaragua, (1) and until 1990 about 25,000 Nicaraguans were killed in an armed struggle between the Sandinista government and Contra rebels who were formed from the remnants of Somoza’s national government. The use of assassination manuals by the Contras surfaced in 1984. (2,3)

The U.S. supported the victorious government regime by providing covert military aid to the Contras (anti-communist guerillas) starting in November, 1981. But when Congress discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress, it passed the Boland Amendment in 1983 which prohibited the CIA, Defense Department and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. (4)

But ways were found to get around this prohibition. The National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, raised private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, arms were sold to Iran and the proceeds were diverted from those sales to the Contras engaged in the insurgency against the Sandinista government. (5) Finally, the Sandinistas were voted out of office in 1990 by voters who thought that a change in leadership would placate the U.S., which was causing misery to Nicaragua’s citizenry by it support of the Contras.


In 1971 West Pakistan, an authoritarian state supported by the U.S., brutally invaded East Pakistan. The war ended after India, whose economy was staggering after admitting about 10 million refugees, invaded East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and defeated the West Pakistani forces. (1)

Millions of people died during that brutal struggle, referred to by some as genocide committed by West Pakistan. That country had long been an ally of the U.S., starting with $411 million provided to establish its armed forces which spent 80% of its budget on its military. $15 million in arms flowed into W. Pakistan during the war. (2,3,4)

Three sources estimate that 3 million people died and (5,2,6) one source estimates 1.5 million. (3)


In December, 1989 U.S. troops invaded Panama, ostensibly to arrest Manuel Noriega, that nation’s president. This was an example of the U.S. view that it is the master of the world and can arrest anyone it wants to. For a number of years before that he had worked for the CIA, but fell out of favor partially because he was not an opponent of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. (1) It has been estimated that between 500 and 4,000 people died. (2,3,4)

Paraguay: See South America: Operation Condor


The Philippines were under the control of the U.S. for over a hundred years. In about the last 50 to 60 years the U.S. has funded and otherwise helped various Philippine governments which sought to suppress the activities of groups working for the welfare of its people. In 1969 the Symington Committee in the U.S. Congress revealed how war material was sent there for a counter-insurgency campaign. U.S. Special Forces and Marines were active in some combat operations. The estimated number of persons that were executed and disappeared under President Fernando Marcos was over 100,000. (1,2)

South America: Operation Condor

This was a joint operation of 6 despotic South American governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay) to share information about their political opponents. An estimated 13,000 people were killed under this plan. (1)

It was established on November 25, 1975 in Chile by an act of the Interamerican Reunion on Military Intelligence. According to U.S. embassy political officer, John Tipton, the CIA and the Chilean Secret Police were working together, although the CIA did not set up the operation to make this collaboration work. Reportedly, it ended in 1983. (2)

On March 6, 2001 the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. (3)


Since 1955, when it gained its independence, Sudan has been involved most of the time in a civil war. Until about 2003 approximately 2 million people had been killed. It not known if the death toll in Darfur is part of that total.

Human rights groups have complained that U.S. policies have helped to prolong the Sudanese civil war by supporting efforts to overthrow the central government in Khartoum. In 1999 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with the leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) who said that she offered him food supplies if he would reject a peace plan sponsored by Egypt and Libya.

In 1978 the vastness of Sudan’s oil reservers was discovered and within two years it became the sixth largest recipient of U.S, military aid. It’s reasonable to assume that if the U.S. aid a government to come to power it will feel obligated to give the U.S. part of the oil pie.

A British group, Christian Aid, has accused foreign oil companies of complicity in the depopulation of villages. These companies – not American – receive government protection and in turn allow the government use of its airstrips and roads.

In August 1998 the U.S. bombed Khartoum, Sudan with 75 cruise míssiles. Our government said that the target was a chemical weapons factory owned by Osama bin Laden. Actually, bin Laden was no longer the owner, and the plant had been the sole supplier of pharmaceutical supplies for that poor nation. As a result of the bombing tens of thousands may have died because of the lack of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. The U.S. settled a lawsuit filed by the factory’s owner. (1,2)

Uruguay: See South America: Operation Condor


In Vietnam, under an agreement several decades ago, there was supposed to be an election for a unified North and South Vietnam. The U.S. opposed this and supported the Diem government in South Vietnam. In August, 1964 the CIA and others helped fabricate a phony Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and this was used as a pretext for greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam. (1)

During that war an American assassination operation,called Operation Phoenix, terrorized the South Vietnamese people, and during the war American troops were responsible in 1968 for the mass slaughter of the people in the village of My Lai.

According to a Vietnamese government statement in 1995 the number of deaths of civilians and military personnel during the Vietnam War was 5.1 million. (2)

Since deaths in Cambodia and Laos were about 2.7 million (See Cambodia and Laos) the estimated total for the Vietnam War is 7.8 million.

The Virtual Truth Commission provides a total for the war of 5 million, (3) and Robert McNamara, former Secretary Defense, according to the New York Times Magazine says that the number of Vietnamese dead is 3.4 million. (4,5)


Yugoslavia was a socialist federation of several republics. Since it refused to be closely tied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gained some suport from the U.S. But when the Soviet Union dissolved, Yugoslavia’s usefulness to the U.S. ended, and the U.S and Germany worked to convert its socialist economy to a capitalist one by a process primarily of dividing and conquering. There were ethnic and religious differences between various parts of Yugoslavia which were manipulated by the U.S. to cause several wars which resulted in the dissolution of that country.

From the early 1990s until now Yugoslavia split into several independent nations whose lowered income, along with CIA connivance, has made it a pawn in the hands of capitalist countries. (1) The dissolution of Yugoslavia was caused primarily by the U.S. (2)

Here are estimates of some, if not all, of the internal wars in Yugoslavia. All wars: 107,000; (3,4)

Bosnia and Krajina: 250,000; (5) Bosnia: 20,000 to 30,000; (5) Croatia: 15,000; (6) and

Kosovo: 500 to 5,000. (7)



1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.135.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

3.Soviet War in Afghanistan

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.76

5.U.S Involvement in Afghanistan, Wikipedia Afghanistan)

6.The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at 15 October 2001,

7.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.5

8.Unknown News,


1.Howard W. French “From Old Files, a New Story of the U.S. Role in the Angolan War” New York Times 3/31/02

2.Angolan Update, American Friends Service Committee FS, 11/1/99 flyer.

3.Norman Solomon, War Made Easy, (John Wiley & Sons, 2005) p. 82-83.

4.Lance Selfa, U.S. Imperialism, A Century of Slaughter, International Socialist Review Issue 7, Spring 1999 (as appears in Third world Traveler www.

5. Jeffress Ramsay, Africa , (Dushkin/McGraw Hill Guilford Connecticut), 1997, p. 144-145.

6.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.54.

Argentina : See South America: Operation Condor


1. Phil Gunson, Guardian, 5/6/02, /article/0,4273,41-07884,00.html

2.Jerry Meldon, Return of Bolilvia’s Drug – Stained Dictator, Consortium,

Brazil See South America: Operation Condor


1.Virtual Truth Commissiion .

2.David Model, President Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and the Bombing of Cambodia excerpted from the book Lying for Empire How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face, Common Courage Press, 2005, paper

3.Noam Chomsky, Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.,http//


1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 151-152 .

2.Richard Keeble, Crimes Against Humanity in Chad, Znet/Activism 12/4/06


1.Parenti, Michael, The Sword and the Dollar (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 56.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 142-143.

3.Moreorless: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte,

4.Associated Press,Pincohet on 91st Birthday, Takes Responsibility for Regimes’s Abuses, Dayton Daily News 11/26/06

5.Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 18.

China: See Korea


1.Chronology of American State Terrorism, p.2

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 163.

3.Millions Killed by Imperialism Washington Post May 6, 2002)

4.Gabriella Gamini, CIA Set Up Death Squads in Colombia Times Newspapers Limited, Dec. 5, 1996,

5.Virtual Truth Commission, 1991

Human Rights Watch Report: Colombia’s Killer Networks–The Military-Paramilitary Partnership).


1.St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture – on Bay of Pigs Invasion


Democratic Republic of Congo (Formerly Zaire)

1.F. Jeffress Ramsey, Africa (Guilford Connecticut, 1997), p. 85

2. Anup Shaw The Democratic Republic of Congo, 10/31/2003)

3.Kevin Whitelaw, A Killing in Congo, U. S. News and World Report

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p 158-159.

5.Ibid.,p. 260

6.Ibid.,p. 259


8.David Pickering, “World War in Africa, 6/26/02,

9.William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy; U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, Arms Trade Resource Center, January ,

Dominican Republic

1.Norman Solomon, (untitled) Baltimore Sun April 26, 2005
Intervention Spin Cycle


3.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 175.

4.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.26-27.

East Timor

1.Virtual Truth Commission,

2.Matthew Jardine, Unraveling Indonesia, Nonviolent Activist, 1997)

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism

4.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 197.

5.US trained butchers of Timor, The Guardian, London. Cited by The Drudge Report, September 19, 1999.

El Salvador

1.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003, (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 152-153.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 54-55.

3.El Salvador, Wikipedia

4.Virtual Truth Commissiion


1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 66-67.

2.Stephen Zunes, The U.S. Invasion of Grenada, .


1.Virtual Truth Commissiion


3.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.2-13.

4.Robert T. Buckman, Latin America 2003 (Stryker-Post Publications Baltimore 2003) p. 162.

5.Douglas Farah, Papers Show U.S. Role in Guatemalan Abuses, Washington Post Foreign Service, March 11, 1999, A 26


1.Francois Duvalier,

2.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p 87.

3.William Blum, Haiti 1986-1994: Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Priest,


1.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 55.

2.Reports by Country: Honduras, Virtual Truth Commission

3.James A. Lucas, Torture Gets The Silence Treatment, Countercurrents, July 26, 2004.

4.Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson, Unearthed: Fatal Secrets, Baltimore Sun, reprint of a series that appeared June 11-18, 1995 in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, School of Assassins, p. 46 Orbis Books 2001.

5.Michael Dobbs, Negroponte’s Time in Honduras at Issue, Washington Post, March 21, 2005


1.Edited by Malcolm Byrne, The 1956 Hungarian Revoluiton: A history in Documents November 4, 2002

2.Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia,


1.Virtual Truth Commission

2.Editorial, Indonesia’s Killers, The Nation, March 30, 1998.

3.Matthew Jardine, Indonesia Unraveling, Non Violent Activist Sept–Oct, 1997 (Amnesty) 2/7/07.

4.Sison, Jose Maria, Reflections on the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia, p. 5.;

5.Annie Pohlman, Women and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-1966: Gender Variables and Possible Direction for Research, p.4,

6.Peter Dale Scott, The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264.

7.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.30.


1.Geoff Simons, Iraq from Sumer to Saddam, 1996, St. Martins Press, NY p. 317.

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

3.BBC 1988: US Warship Shoots Down Iranian Airliner )


Iran-Iraq War

1.Michael Dobbs, U.S. Had Key role in Iraq Buildup, Washington Post December 30, 2002, p A01

2.Global Security.Org , Iran Iraq War (1980-1980)

U.S. Iraq War and Sanctions

1.Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time (New York, Thunder’s Mouth), 1994, p.31-32

2.Ibid., p. 52-54

3.Ibid., p. 43

4.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, (South End Press Cambridge MA 2000). p. 175.

5.Food and Agricultural Organizaiton, The Children are Dying, 1995 World View Forum, Internationa Action Center, International Relief Association, p. 78

6.Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press Cambridge MA 2000. p. 61.

7.David Cortright, A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions December 3, 2001, The Nation.

U.S-Iraq War 2003-?

1.Jonathan Bor 654,000 Deaths Tied to Iraq War Baltimore Sun , October 11,2006


Israeli-Palestinian War

1.Post-1967 Palestinian & Israeli Deaths from Occupation & Violence May 16, 2006

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism


1.James I. Matray Revisiting Korea: Exposing Myths of the Forgotten War, Korean War Teachers Conference: The Korean War, February 9, 2001http://www.truman/

2.William Blum, Killing Hope (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), p. 46

3.Kanako Tokuno, Chinese Winter Offensive in Korean War – the Debacle of American Strategy, ICE Case Studies Number 186, May, 2006

4.John G. Stroessinger, Why Nations go to War, (New York; St. Martin’s Press), p. 99)

5.Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, as reported in Answers.com

6.Exploring the Environment: Korean

7.S. Brian Wilson, Who are the Real Terrorists? Virtual Truth Commisson

8.Korean War Casualty Statistics www.century

9.S. Brian Wilson, Documenting U.S. War Crimes in North Korea (Veterans for Peace Newsletter) Spring, 2002)


1.William Blum Rogue State (Maine, Common Cause Press) p. 136

2.Chronology of American State Terrorism

3.Fred Branfman, War Crimes in Indochina and our Troubled National Soul


1.Conn Hallinan, Nepal & the Bush Administration: Into Thin Air, February 3, 2004

2.Human Rights Watch, Nepal’s Civil War: the Conflict Resumes, March 2006 )

3.Wayne Madsen, Possible CIA Hand in the Murder of the Nepal Royal Family, India Independent Media Center, September 25, 2001


1.Virtual Truth Commission

2.Timeline Nicaragua

3.Chronology of American State Terrorism,

4.William Blum, Nicaragua 1981-1990 Destabilization in Slow Motion

5.Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,


1.John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, (New York: St. Martin’s Press), 1974 pp 157-172.

2.Asad Ismi, A U.S. – Financed Military Dictatorship, The CCPA Monitor, June 2002, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

3.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p.123, 124.

4.Arjum Niaz ,When America Look the Other Way by,

5.Leo Kuper, Genocide (Yale University Press, 1981), p. 79.

6.Bangladesh Liberation War , Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia


1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’s Greatest Hits, (Odonian Press 1998) p. 83.

2.William Blum, Rogue State (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2000), p.154.

3.U.S. Military Charged with Mass Murder, The Winds 9/96,

4.Mark Zepezauer, CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p.83.

Paraguay See South America: Operation Condor


1.Romeo T. Capulong, A Century of Crimes Against the Filipino People, Presentation, Public Interest Law Center, World Tribunal for Iraq Trial in New York City on August 25,2004.

2.Roland B. Simbulan The CIA in Manila – Covert Operations and the CIA’s Hidden Hisotry in the Philippines Equipo Nizkor Information – Derechos,

South America: Operation Condor

1.John Dinges, Pulling Back the Veil on Condor, The Nation, July 24, 2000.

2.Virtual Truth Commission, Telling the Truth for a Better

3.Operation Condor


1.Mark Zepezauer, Boomerang, (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p. 30, 32,34,36.

2.The Black Commentator, Africa Action The Tale of Two Genocides: The Failed US Response to Rwanda and Darfur, 11 August 2006

Uruguay See South America: Operation Condor


1.Mark Zepezauer, The CIA’S Greatest Hits (Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press,1994), p 24

2.Casualties – US vs NVA/VC,

3.Brian Wilson, Virtual Truth Commission

4.Fred Branfman, U.S. War Crimes in Indochiona and our Duty to Truth August 26, 2004

5.David K Shipler, Robert McNamara and the Ghosts of


1.Sara Flounders, Bosnia Tragedy:The Unknown Role of the Pentagon in NATO in the Balkans (New York: International Action Center) p. 47-75

2.James A. Lucas, Media Disinformation on the War in Yugoslavia: The Dayton Peace Accords Revisited, Global Research, September 7, 2005

3.Yugoslav Wars in 1990s

4.George Kenney, The Bosnia Calculation: How Many Have Died? Not nearly as many as some would have you think., NY Times Magazine, April 23, 1995

5.Chronology of American State Terrorism

6.Croatian War of Independence, Wikipedia

7.Human Rights Watch, New Figures on Civilian Deaths in Kosovo War, (February 7, 2000)

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

Selected Articles: What Is the Future of Afghanistan?

August 13th, 2021 by Global Research News

Afghanistan’s “Color Revolution”? Narcotics and the Opium Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 19, 2021

America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has been  the object of extensive negotiations between Washington and the Taliban. An earlier deal was signed in Doha in late February 2020 during the Trump administration.

Six Questions We Need to Ask About Afghanistan

By Kit Knightly, August 19, 2021

Afghanistan has “fallen”, that’s the line. The Taliban forces have taken the opportunity of US/NATO withdrawal and swept across the entire country, taking every major city within a week and with barely a shot fired.

Did the NY Fed Confiscate $1.3 Billion in Afghan Gold: Striking Revelations from Afghanistan’s Central Bank Chief

By Zero Hedge, August 19, 2021

Digging deeper, the DAB’s June statement stated that the bank owned investments worth $6.1 billion. While the latest report did not provide details of those investments, a breakdown in the year-end report showed that the majority of those investments were in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds and bills…

How Russia-China Are Stage-managing the Taliban

By Pepe Escobar, August 19, 2021

For the record, they also stated that the Taliban took all of Afghanistan in only 11 days: that’s pretty accurate. They stressed “very good relations with Pakistan, Russia and China.”

Six Things You Need to Know About Afghanistan and the Taliban

By Marc Vandepitte, August 18, 2021

The most prominent figure to emerge during that period is Osama bin Laden. In 1988, he founded Al Qaeda, a fundamentalist and ruthless terrorist group. Through the intelligence service of Pakistan [in liaison with the CIA], he could count on a lot of support from the US.

20 Years Ago, Prior to 9/11: US Preparations for the Invasion of Afghanistan

By Shane Quinn, August 06, 2021

Due to America’s declining oil and natural gas stocks, the top priority for president Bush was to increase US influence over rich fossil fuel sources, constructing pipelines, refineries and other such infrastructure.

Afghanistan: A New Pivot in the Greater Middle East?

By Peter Koenig and GEOFOR, August 06, 2021

The withdrawal was decided long before Biden took office. Pressure for disengaging from the US longest war – about 20 years – from Congress and the public has been building up steadily, but ever increasingly since Obama’s promise early on in his second term to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan.

The War in Afghanistan: The Real ‘Crime of the Century’ Behind the Opioid Crisis

By Max Parry, August 04, 2021

Corporate media would have us believe it is simply fortuitous that during the exact time opioid overdose deaths in the U.S. began to increase in the early 2000s, the so-called War on Terror began with the conquest and plundering of a country abroad that has since become the world’s epicenter for opium production.

Graveyard of Empires

By Eric Margolis, July 21, 2021

For the past two decades, the Afghan nationalist mujahidin have faced the full might of the US empire: waves of B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers; fleets of killer drones, constant air strikes from US airbases in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Gulf; 300,000 US-financed Afghan mercenary troops; up to 120,000 US and NATO troops and other US-paid mercenaries; the brutal Communist-run Afghan secret police, regular government police, Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek militias, hit squads sent by the US and Britain, plus famine and disease. Use of torture by western forces was rampant.

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 08, 2021

The US opioid crisis broadly defined bears a relationship to the export of heroin out of Afghanistan. There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan. By 2016 that number went up to 4,500,000 (2.5 million heroin addicts and 2 million casual users).

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: What Is the Future of Afghanistan?

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


After a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, the USA is about to lose another war likely to come.

Taiwan participates in APEC, not as an independent country, but as a “member economy” under the name of “Chinese Taipei”. This format is acceptable to Beijing.

But Cold-Warrior Biden (declared foreign-policy genius by the New York Times) and the USA want to create conflict with China on an unprecedented level of risk. Biden therefore wants to invite Taiwan’s regional leader Tsai Ing-wen to Biden’s anti-China-Russia “conference of democracies” later this year. Probably together with such Western democracies as Saudi Arabia. That will be a de-facto recognition of Tsai Ing-wen as a head of state, and thereby also de-facto an official recognition of Taiwan as an independent state.

China, of course, cannot live with that.

China therefore in the official media Global Times now threatens to respond by once and for all ending Taiwan’s pretension of independence through forcing Beijing’s control on Taiwan’s airspace:

China must clearly show its stance: We will definitely not accept the US to invite Taiwan regional leader Tsai Ing-wen to participate in the meeting. Allowing Tsai to attend a meeting and show on the screen with the heads of various countries and governments will gravely violate the one-China principle.

“The air over the island of Taiwan will be included in the cruise range of the PLA. The fighters will declare that the land underneath is Chinese territory and will crush all attempts to use the Taiwan question as a bargaining chip with China. If the Taiwan military dares to open fire on the PLA fighters, the large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan’s military targets from the mainland and our bomber fleets will make a decisive answer and write history. See this.

China taking over control of Taiwan’s airspace will most likely happen anyway – now probably sooner rather than later. It is important to note that China is already actively preparing for this future by sending PLA combat aircraft over Taiwan. So far only as incursions, but those ”incursions” can soon be turned into permanent Chinese air patrols over Taiwan.

China taking over control of Taiwan’s airspace are not empty threats from Beijing. The Chinese are much too clever to be caught in making this an empty threat. China has since long acquired the military capability to win a battle against the USA about the Taiwan Strait and control of Taiwan’s airspace. Already in 2015, China had 39 major air bases within 800 km of Taiwan – the USA only has one (Okinawa). Since 2015, China has further widened her military advantage over the US on Taiwan.

The aircraft carriers of the US Navy (of which due to maintenance-cycles probably only a handful will be deployable around Taiwan at any given time) will not change this calculation significantly. It should be noted too, that China’s air bases also give China a strategic defense advantage of depth, compared to the single-point operational facilities of the USA on Okinawa and on a handful of deployable aircraft carriers, which are all vulnerable to China’s carrier-killer missiles.

On top of China’s complete superiority in bases for combat aircraft around Taiwan comes that China has more than 1,000 missiles pointed at Taiwan – and Beijing is ready to fire them.

On the sea, though US Navy ships are on average larger, China’s PLA Navy has more ships than the USA.

All Beijing needs to do is to suppress Taiwan’s air defense, outcombat their air force, and degrade Taiwan’s airports and ports just enough to stop all civil traffic and goods transport. Taiwan’s population and main infrastructure will remain nearly intact, but Taiwan is rendered defenseless and cut off. Beijing can then negotiate Taipei’s surrender.

Peaceful take-over or war. In any case, the USA will lose control over Taiwan and in all East Asia, and the USA thereby totally loses its place in the World. But if in a war, the US will lose its global position in a bloody and cataclysmic way. The US may in such a war lose half of the US Navy, which is the foundation for US power projection in the World. China is prepared to bear enormous sacrifice in life and treasure for Taiwan – the American people is not. Japan is also not. China also no longer depends on US trade, finance, or technology. The USA is over-indebted. A catastrophic US defeat in a Taiwan war which the USA can only lose, will necessarily bring about a total social collapse inside the USA.

Biden is not mentally capable of very much – also not of backing down from his invitation of Tsai Ing-wen to officially represent Taiwan as a de-facto independent state. And China is not politically capable of backing down from her threat to respond by forcefully bringing Taiwan’s airspace – and thereby all the island of Taiwan – under Beijing’s full control.

War on Taiwan is therefore now the most likely scenario.


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.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden. 

Featured image is from US-China Perception Monitor

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 COVID vaccines offered (and now increasingly and illegally under international law) forced on people are experimental, did not go through complete animal testing, are not vaccines but gene therapy, have not been licensed and in the USA, the UK and Europe there have been over 25,000 deaths and millions of adverse reactions.

But those taking the vaccines have not been told of these reactions prior to being injected and therefore cannot have given “informed consent” as is required under the law – and the Nuremberg Code.

There are those who have died after refusing vaccines – but there have been many thousands who have died after taking the vaccine. At least we know that 93% of the latter were perfectly healthy before they were vaccinated (only 7% of the UK population has been infected and the vast majority of them mildly).

The vaccines, according to official figures, have also given the vaccinated COVID – 1170 (so called breakthrough) cases in the UK. Of those who contracted COVID from the vaccine the fatality rate was (for the Pfizer and AZ vaccines) over 6%. But the overall fatality rate in the UK is only 2.2%.

Contrast these facts with the White House Pandemic Response Coordinator who said (Yahoo news 6/8/21) –

“The vaccines continue to be exceptionally effective in protecting against severe disease and death. On the rare occasions when the coronavirus does break through the protections the vaccines offer, the resulting bout of COVID-19 tends to be mild.”

These political and corporate lies are seducing millions into taking a killer vaccine, one which is far more dangerous statistically for anyone under 50 than the danger of the virus itself. And the average age of those who have died with COVID (not OF COVID) is over 80.

By all means make up your own mind after reading the facts – but do not believe those official, corrupted sources who are proven liars.

COVID Lies and Manipulation

Government and corporatist fascist “fact checkers” (has an expression ever taken on the exact opposite of its meaning so quickly!?) have become expert at lies and manipulation of the truth as regards vaccinations, COVID cases and COVID deaths.

As we expect from a corporatist fascist society the State has not legislated to dismiss employees for not being vaccinated – but is sitting back and allowing state institutions to bar the unvaccinated and private corporations to sack their employees. This is classic arbitrary law (selective and different rules depending on your situation/beliefs – the hallmark of fascism.)

Equally arbitrary are the so called “COVID cases” which are of course not “cases” at all but merely those who have tested positive in the completely useless “lateral flow tests” and the equally useless PCR test (developed when the COVID virus had not even been isolated or sequenced) and now to be phased out in the USA.

Deaths from COVID are no more than about 12% of the actual figure, the rest being death from another cause but with the patient having tested positive within 28 days of death – often having caught the infection in hospital.

So the fatuous “tested positive with 28 days of death” is used by the Government when they count “cases of COVID” but when deaths following the vaccine are counted the same way suddenly they say “there is no proof the vaccine was to blame”.

The arbitrary twisting of definitions to suit State power is another characteristic of Fascism.

Money Corrupts Doctors Giving Vaccines

Despite their symptoms, some of those who reacted to their first vaccine dose are under pressure from GPs to have the second. Maybe because GP practices receive £25.16 for each double-jabbed person. With an average of 9,000 patients for each practice (although under-16s are not yet eligible for the jab so subtract one 6th – 1500) that could be a £188,000 incentive. See this.

Like these doctors we know that virtually every member of the Government’s SAGE Committee taking decisions during this epidemic worked for institutions in receipt of millions from the Bill Gates Foundation so the UK Medical and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (taking decisions on vaccine safety) received donations from Gates Foundation when gates himself makes hundreds of millions from those vaccines. Gates and the corrupted British medical establishment make David Cameron and the corrupted Westminster Parliament look like amateurs! Freenations already reported the corrupting research effects of Gates’s money at Keele University: see this.

The Vaccinated Are Infectious and Die

As we know from the official VAERS reported on this website tens of thousands of deaths and serious injury and long term injury has been caused by these experimental, unlicensed vaccines. AND THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT ILL PRIOR TO BEING VACCINATED.

In Germany the director of the Pathological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, (who was already leading a State financed autopsy project on people who have died from Covid-19) also autopsied more than 40 deceased vaccinated people.

He concluded that 30 to 40 percent died from the vaccination itself. The pathologist cited “rare, severe side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases”. See this.

The Vaccination Farce Revealed

Although this matter is far too serious to describe as a farce the following conversation between a caller and the Centre for Disease Control in the USA shows how useless the vaccination pushers are:


The first thing the CDC tells the caller is that he “should be poked – vaccinated – regardless of whether you already had COVID-19” this is despite studies which show NATURAL long term immunity after COVID (and very long term immunity after other coronaviruses). See this.

Extracts from the conversation:

ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?

CDC: Yes, for the collective.

ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?

CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.

ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?

CDC: Yes.

ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?

CDC: Yes.

ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?

CDC: Never mind that.

ME:    Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?

CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them.

ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?

CDC: That’s right



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

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 June 9, 2021, the Ontario Declaration of Emergency, enacted under Section 7.0.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, was revoked, but the government and the municipalities did not announce it publicly and the mainstream media have not reported on this significant development. Restrictions and other emergency measures (masking, social distancing, some lockdowns, as well as attendance or access limitations) still continue. An aggressive coercion aimed at mass vaccination is being applied by the media and by government agencies, as well as by some corporations and organizations.

Yesterday, while driving, I accidently turned on the 680 News and my brain was instantly flooded with “COVID”, the “new variant”, fear campaign, and information that our federal government (yes, Justin and the Liberals) decided to implement segregation and discrimination policies in a form of vaccine passports and a requirement that travelling and certain services will only be available to those “fully” vaxxed.

Doug Ford and the provincial government were more careful. According to 680 News, they announced that provincial vaccination passports will be required for “international travel” but their use as basis for other restrictions (including requirement for masking, social distancing, access to services, events, hospitals, education, and retail) will be decided by the businesses that provide such services. Doug is shedding legal liability and political responsibility, so that he can later point his finger at somebody else and say “It wasn’t me! They did it!”

In the meantime, it appears that:

The C-19 Vaccines and vaccination campaigns are now illegal. The C-19 experimental and still tested vaccines were approved for use under emergency authorization only. Since the provincial Declaration of Emergency has been revoked as of June 9, 2021, there is no emergency in Ontario and the emergency authorization for the C-19 vaccines has therefore expired. It is null and void. Similarly, other emergency orders and measures are now illegal.

Politicians and media outlets, service owners, school authorities, health workers and employers should be aware that coaxing, instigating, and threatening citizens, clients and employees by applying segregation based on the vaccination status constitute a violation of our rights and freedoms and therefore may be categorized as a criminal activity. Every person making and implementing such decisions or encouraging such requirements is personally responsible and liable for his or her actions.

The question remains, under what authority are the emergency orders still being maintained? According to the constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre,

  • They are being wrongly enacted by local municipalities as well as various businesses and institutions under the false guides of the Reopening Ontario Act. This Act provides basis to relax the emergency measures but, if there is no emergency, then there is nothing to relax.
  • Emergency measures are also being wrongly enacted by local Public Health Officers under Section 22 of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act. By definition, the Health Protection Act does not deal with wide-spread emergencies, otherwise we would not need the Emergency Act. These two pieces of legislation are aimed at two different scenarios. The Health Protection Act is meant to deal with local and limited safety issues, for example, a poisoned water, a limited outbreak in a specific facility, or a highly contagious person that needs to be isolated. It is not meant to apply across the province or across the entire municipality indiscriminately.

In this article, I am omitting other factors that call the credibility of the official “pandemic” narrative into question. For example, the fact that governments implementing the emergency measures have not been able to prove the existence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and therefore the credibility of the “pandemic” itself. They have greatly overstated both morbidity and mortality statistics by using a highly unreliable RT-PCR test in a way that produces false positive results and by providing financial incentives for false death certificates. They and the mainstream media have contributed to an unprecedented fear campaign based on a pack of lies. They have restricted or delayed regular health services and access to doctors. They have banned effective and proven treatment protocols and medications. They have enforced isolation measures that destroy our natural herd immunity. They have forced the population to wear masks that are ineffective against respiratory viruses and unhealthy, when used for prolonged periods of time. Their decisions have contributed to the destruction of economy and small businesses, loss of jobs, rising poverty and resulting social problems (domestic violence, alcoholism and drug use, suicides). Finally, they have censored and punished scientists and doctors who publicly shared their opinions that differed from the official narrative. It looks like all these initiatives are motivated by a desire to coerce and force the population to accept experimental vaccines that are not yet proven safe, that are ineffective (they don’t prevent infections or transmission) and have already caused adverse effects, including death. Information about these facts and risk factors is also being censored by governments, by mainstream media, and by some social media outlets, as well as by some corrupted employers collaborating with criminal agendas hiding behind the so-called “pandemic”.

Based on available information and existing evidence on record, it is reasonable to assume that the true agendas behind the “pandemic” scare, the restrictions and lockdowns, the isolation measures (including masks and social distancing), and the experimental so-called “vaccines” are linked to globalization, the New Normal, the Great Reset, the undemocratic one-world government, the total control over the population, the total control over the supply chains and money, the enrichment of the elites, and the depopulation. At this time, most of these agendas are unconstitutional, and therefore, criminal.

Similarly, any effort to violate the requirement for informed consent, (as per the Nuremberg Code), or to implement any segregation and discrimination measures in order to force people to undergo experimental treatment or medical intervention, constitute a crime and punishable violation under our Constitution, existing laws and human rights.

All politicians and media managers, all business managers and supervisors of various organizations and services, who willingly participate in such criminal schemes, should be held legally responsible for their actions. The punishment should be especially severe, when such schemes are targeting children.


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 Dundas Valley.

Featured image is from Inga –

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are the COVID-19 Vaccines and Emergency Measures Still Legal?
  • 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.


Prior to taking any unapproved drug, you have the right to receive a broad and complete spectrum of information about the potential effects of those drugs on your body, in order for you to give “informed consent” or to refuse. Dr. Blaylock wrote this especially for this purpose.

There are four major companies offering the COVID-19 “vaccines” (biological bioengineered agents); Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. Two (Pfizer and Moderna) use a technology never before approved or used “vaccine” called a messenger RNA (mRNA) biological.

The mRNA biologicals encase spike protein producing mRNA within a nanoparticle capsule–LNP [which contains nano-sized polyethylene glycol (PEG)] to protect the mRNA from enzymatic destruction by the vaccinated person’s cells. This prolongs the survival of the mRNA, allowing it to continuously produce the spike protein in your body.  The latter two biologicals, from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, utilize a single vaccine technology involving the use of an altered, attenuated virus (Adeno26) to generate antibodies to the spike protein.

This man-made virus literally infects the person with a spike protein-containing virus. You should know that the spike protein is the pathological part of the COVID-19 virus. In essence, you have a man-made virus, and mRNA biological that does exactly what the COVID-19 virus does to you—it exposes you to massive amounts of spike protein. Once in the body this spike protein can enter all tissues—including the heart, the brain, the lungs, the kidneys, the eyes, and the liver.  The two main sites it invades with the spike protein are the liver and the spleen—both major immune regulating sites.

Since no studies have been done on what happens to the spike proteins once they have been injected and most important, how long the mRNA will keep producing the spike proteins, we have no idea concerning the safety of these vaccines. Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have never made a vaccine before this.

It is also important to appreciate that biodistribution studies have shown that the mRNA injected into a person’s body has been found to deposit a small amount of the mRNA into several tissues, most importantly into the brain. This means that the mRNA from the vaccine is producing large amounts of the spike protein directly into your brain for what could be a prolonged period. In such a location as the brain, the spike protein will act as a continuous source of inflammation and excitotoxicity (immunoexcitotoxicity), known to be a central mechanism of several neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease and ALS, among others.

Most important, one should understand these are experimental vaccines and do not have the approval of the regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In order to allow the population to use these entirely experimental biologicals the government had to declare this “pandemic” a medical emergency and utilize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)—which emphasizes that the agents are not approved and are entirely experimental. The vaccine approval process for an experimental vaccine normally requires a period as long as ten years of intensive study before a vaccine is approved.

In this case, these companies were studying these vaccines for only two months before they were released, despite the recommendation by the FDA they be studied a minimum of 2 years before approval. Meetings by the regulatory agencies were unable to come to a firm conclusion on the length of the studies needed, so EUA proceeded despite the inherent dangers to the public.

You should be aware that the so-called “studies” by these makers of the vaccines were badly flawed, in that placebos and blinding of the studies were abandoned before adequate studies were completed. This prevents researchers and regulatory agencies from being able to determine if a product is actually safe or effective.

As mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies did not conduct studies to see how the injected biologicals were distributed in the body or how long the immune stimulation would continue—which is absolutely vital as regard to safety and the risk of long-term side effects. The biodistribution studies were done independently.

You should also be aware that research on mRNA vaccines in the past demonstrated many problems and unknowns. Among these concerns are:

  • Possible injection site severe reactions, such as severe pain and swelling at the injection site.
  • Persistence of an intense immune reaction producing continuous tissue and organ destruction.
  • Induction of autoimmunity involving a number of tissues and organs (we known that the spike protein cross-reacts with over 28 human tissues and cell components.)
  • Induction of swelling of various tissues (edema)
  • Problems with coagulation, which can include bleeding and/or blood clots.
  • Induction of immune cell priming, which can set the stage for widespread inflammatory tissue destruction and agonizing death.
  • Triggering of neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease and especially ALS.
  • Triggering transverse myelitis with permanent paralysis—either paraplegia or quadriplegia.
  • Triggering of multiple sclerosis
  • Worsening of reactions to wild type virus in vaccinated individuals, leading to severe immune reactions or death.
  • Myocarditis and sudden cardiac death or progressive heart failure.

Is a vaccine really needed?

Vaccine manufacture has become the major profit maker for pharmaceutical companies, especially for vaccines that are recommended or mandated each year. This has already been proposed for this set of vaccines. This is especially so now that these corporations have been given legal protection from lawsuits by Congress.

Of most importance, is that this virus is being treated as if it were a deadly pandemic of major proportions. Unfortunately, most people do not understand the concept of a “pandemic”. Most assume that any virus that spreads rapidly over the entire globe qualifies. If this were so, the common cold viruses would constitute a pandemic several times a year.

Prior to this event, a pandemic must not only spread around the world rapidly, but it must cause a high death rate among all groups—the healthy, the elderly, both genders and the young. This virus is a danger in essentially one major group—the elderly having two or more major chronic diseases. Death and severe illness in younger age groups are among those who have immune deficiency disorders—obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, hereditary immunodeficiencies and HIV infection.

Because this virus did not meet the accepted criteria for a pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed the criteria, dropping the necessity for the virus to be deadly for a significant percentage of the population or causing severe injuries to a mass of the population. This virus has never even come close to satisfying these criteria.

Worse, to increase the perception that everyone was in danger, the public health authorities were instructed by the CDC to only use the RT-PCR tests to diagnose cases and specifically instructed these agencies to set the cycles far beyond what was standard for accurate testing (20 to 30 cycles). By doing this, the CDC, and other agencies, turned negative tests into false positive tests—making it appear that the infection was everywhere.

Worse still, they instructed all hospitals to sign out all hospital deaths as being COVID-19 deaths if at any time in the previous month they had a positive RT-PCR test. This included suicides, car accidents, deaths from a heart attack and many more such examples. Death certificates for people dying in their homes were also altered to imply they all died of COVID-19.

The government also paid hospitals more if they listed their serious cases as being COVID-19 cases and making a pay scale to the hospital that paid more if the person was placed on a respirator.

When examining the death rate by age, it is seen that this virus is hardly the 1918 flu virus authorities are implying it to be.

Official data shows that the non-institutionalized fatal infection ratio for all age groups is 0.26%. For those less than age 40, the risk of dying from this virus falls to 0.01%, meaning these people have a 99.99% chance they will recover should they become infected. In Italy, which had the highest death rate from this virus in the world, they found that over 98% of the case fatalities occurred among those over age 80 years who had at least two prior major medical conditions.

In the beginning, the majority of deaths in the United States occurred in nursing homes—close to 50% of all deaths. In addition, at least two highly successful treatments exist for the most at-risk patients—hydroxy-chloroquine and ivermectin. The latter had a 90% recovery rate among a very large number of hospitalized patients, most having a complete recovery. When effective treatments are available for an infectious disease, there is no need for a vaccine.

Now, to further determine if the vaccines are worth taking, one should examine the death rate associated with the vaccine as compared to the virus infection itself.

Data on vaccine related deaths come from the CDC-associated site called the vaccine adverse events recording system (VAERS). It has been determined by several studies that VAERS collects only cases supplied by the either patients or the government and that no more than 1% of complications are actually reported. Reporting by physicians is not mandatory. Incidences reported to VAERS by patients are investigated to affirm they are legitimate.

The latest VAER’s figures suggest that more than 4200 people have died in connection with the vaccines. Of these, 943 who died were ages 12 to 17 years old. For a published analysis one must go back to an earlier date, as it was used in a calculation for comparison—vaccine deaths vs COVID infection deaths.

At the time of this study, 1551 deaths were reported to VAERS. That would be a death rate of 0.0028%. If we correct for the poor reporting, we will see there were most likely 155,100 deaths or 0.28% death rate for all the vaccinated. The death rate from the infection itself was 0.01% for those under age 40 years. That would mean that the death rate from the vaccine was approximately 28 times higher than the death rate from the virus itself.

Another way to look at it is to compare the death rates associated with the flu vaccine with that of these COVID-19 vaccines. Between the years 2019 and 2020 some 170 million Americans took the flu vaccine. Of this number there were 45 deaths associated with the flu vaccine. That is a death rate of 0.0000265%. The death rate for COVID vaccine is stated by proponents as being 0.0024%, over 90-times higher than with the flu shot. Another way of looking at this is to examine the actual death figures for each year. In 2017 there were 20 deaths and in 2019, 45 deaths associated with the flu shot.

This year, 4200 plus persons have died after taking these COVID-19 vaccines—93-times higher for these vaccines than the flu vaccine. Obviously, something is very wrong with these vaccines and with the regulatory agencies and all those pushing these vaccines on the public. An analysis of data collected by the Israeli Health Ministry discovered that the vaccines killed 40 times more elderly people than did the disease itself. Even more shocking, their analysis demonstrated that the vaccines killed 260 times more of the younger individuals than did the infection itself.

One of the major differences between the death rate for people infected with the virus itself and those dying as a result of the vaccine is that the former occurs almost exclusively in the elderly in poor health, and the vaccine related deaths are occurring in a far greater number of the healthy young and healthy elderly.

With this information, it is obvious a vaccine is not needed.

So, what about the elderly at-risk people? Would they not benefit from the vaccine since they are at the highest risk? The problem with this is that such individuals would not be able to respond to any vaccine in a way that would be protective. We learned this with the flu vaccines.

Elderly people, especially those with chronic debilitating illnesses and frailty, cannot mount a sufficient immune response to vaccination to protect themselves from such an infection. Despite this (mainly for profit) vaccine promoters encourage these elderly immune deficient individuals to get vaccinated anyway. There are many ways to protect these individuals outside vaccinations. The law now says we cannot mention them.

What are the Serious Complications and Side Effects Associated with these Vaccines?

While death is of major concern as regards these vaccine reactions, severe, permanent and often crippling side effects are of equal concern, especially for younger people and children. According to the latest numbers collected by VAERS, over 18,500 people have been permanently injured by these vaccines. Keep in mind that this is only 1% of the actual number of such victims of these vaccines.

At minimum, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of permanently damaged people. And this is just the early reported cases—long term, over years, the numbers most likely will be far higher. For example, it was found that after three years following the hepatitis B vaccine, there was a 3-fold increase in multiple sclerosis in those receiving the vaccine.

Blood Clots and Hemorrhages

Soon after these vaccines were released to the general public, a number of cases of blood clots and bleeding episodes began to be reported—mostly among the younger age group, even teenagers. For example, a 17-year-old boy in Utah was hospitalized with two blood clots on his brain after his first dose of the vaccine.

This side effect has been labeled as the vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome. From December 2020 to April 2021 there have been 1,845 cases of clotting disorders reported. Among these 655 were reported after the Pfizer vaccine, 577 after the Moderna vaccine and 608 after the J&J vaccine. Several cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) have been reported after these vaccinations.

Cerebral sinus thrombosis results in a devastating stroke effect that severely damages both sides of the brain, should it involve the superior saggital sinus. A study reported in the journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons reported 37 cases of vaccine-associated microthrombi in the brain, heart, liver and kidneys. Most of these clotting problems are associated in young people getting the vaccines. Strokes of varying severity have also been reported.

In Austria there appeared two reports of blood clotting disorders linked to these vaccines. In one such case a 49-year-old nurse died from a severe coagulation disorder and a 35 -year-old nurse at the same hospital developed a pulmonary embolism days after her vaccine. It is interesting to note that coagulation problems also occur with the natural infection, suggesting that by flooding the body with the spike protein, the same mechanism is responsible for the vaccine coagulopathy problems as seen with the natural infection, but on a larger scale and incidence.

As of March 16, 2021, approximately 20 European countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca’s vaccine, primarily because of the associated blood clots in vaccine recipients. According to the Defender, AstraZeneca vaccine had 77% more adverse events than the Pfizer vaccine.

Anaphylactoid Immune Reactions

Almost immediately after the vaccines were released, allergic reactions to the vaccine components were being reported—usually involving an anaphylactoid reaction of major proportions and in some cases with a lethal outcome. Most of the reactions have occurred with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. While rare, these reactions can be deadly and occur within minutes to one hour after receiving the vaccines.

With these vaccines being given at drive throughs, pharmacies and now military troops, the risk of someone dying from this reaction is greatly increased.

So far, the main culprit with these allergic reactions appears to be the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an ingredient. The PEG is used to re-enforce the lipid nanoparticle shield used to protect the mRNA from being destroyed by enzymes within the cells that take up the foreign mRNA. This allows the mRNA to keep producing the spike proteins in your body far longer than the government, media proponents or pharmaceutical makers claim.

The use of PEG (called a PEGylated product) in one experimental study using people was halted when 96 people among the 1600 study participants developed an allergic reaction and one died.

Serious Side Effects

VAERS has recorded a number of serious side effects among people vaccinated with these vaccines. These include:

  • Persistent malaise
  • Extreme exhaustion
  • Multisystem inflammatory syndrome
  • Myocarditis
  • Chronic seizures
  • Paralysis
  • Loss of hearing
  • Psychological effects: mood changes, anxiety, confusion, difficulty finding words, recent memory loss, and bizarre, frightening thoughts.
  • Bell’s palsy
  • Swollen, painful lymph nodes
  • Thrombocytopenia
  • Miscarriages and premature births among vaccinated pregnant women
  • Severe headaches, migraines that do not respond to medications
  • Cardiac problems—heart arrhythmias, tachycardia, and sudden heart failure
  • Strokes
  • Visual problems and blindness
  • Encephalitis/encephalomyelitis and brain stem encephalitis
  • Narcolepsy
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Arthritis/joint pains
  • Venous thromboembolism

As of May 20th, 2021 besides the 4,205 reported vaccine-related deaths, there were:

  • 2,275 cases of Bell’s palsy
  • 195 cases of Guillian Barre syndrome
  • 65,854 cases of anaphylactoid reaction
  • 3,758 cases of clotting disorders and other serious conditions.
  • 1,140 vaccinated pregnant women had an adverse event, including 351 cases of miscarriages or premature births.

It is known that activation of the immune system systemically (as with vaccinations) also powerfully activates the immune cells of the central nervous system, primarily microglia. We call this process, priming. Despite being activated, the microglia do not release high levels of inflammatory chemicals (cytokines, chemokines, and interferon). The second activation of the immune system by the second dose of the vaccine then not only fully activates these brain immune cells they are intensely activated, doing great harm to the brain over a prolonged period.  When stimulated by the second dose these brain immune cells release high levels of destructive inflammatory mediators and excitotoxins (immunoexcitotoxicity).

Of great concern with this vaccine is the fact that the spike protein can easily enter the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) where it can act as a continuous source of microglial activation and subsequent destruction of brain cells and spinal cord cells. In my opinion, there is a significant risk of inducing chronic neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and especially Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), in individuals receiving these vaccines. Subsequent vaccines of other types (influenza, shingles, meningococcus vaccines) will worsen these destructive disorders and make them more likely to occur.

Individuals with preexisting neurological disorders, such as head injuries, strokes, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders, will be at a very high risk of worsening of their condition with these vaccines. No provisions are being made to exclude these individuals from receiving these vaccines, despite the extreme danger.

Dangers to Pregnant Women and Their Baby

As stated, as of May 20, 2021 approximately 1,140 pregnant women reported adverse events after receiving one or two doses of this vaccine. In the past, it was standard knowledge that a woman should not receive any vaccine during pregnancy or if a woman even intends to get pregnant. The WHO agreed with this policy but because of objections from the CDC, they switched their recommendations from no vaccines to endorsing the vaccination of all pregnant women. This is despite the admission by all the makers of these vaccines that no studies of the effect of these vaccines on pregnant women or their babies had been conducted.

Yet, extensive independent research has been done on the effect of immune stimulation during pregnancy. It is known that such stimulation during the last trimester of pregnancy, and even during the first two years after birth, increases the incidence of autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia dramatically in the offspring. Immune stimulation early in pregnancy results in high rates of miscarriage. So far, we have had 351 reports of miscarriage and premature births among women vaccinated during pregnancy.

Keep in mind that VAERS represents only 1% of the actual number of adverse event cases, so the number of women losing babies is far higher. These reports are not mandated by the physician and one can imagine that an OB doctor who recommended the vaccine to their pregnant patients would not want to admit the vaccine was responsible for the loss of their patient’s baby.

Because no research has been done on the long-term effects of these biological agents (vaccines) we have no idea what will happen to these children, who do survive, over their lifetime. No one in a position of responsibility seems to care.

It is also important to keep in mind that most children in the United States receive over 40 vaccine injections before they attend school. Pediatricians are giving as many as eight vaccines during a single office visit. This causes extreme priming of the brain’s microglia, which has been shown to set the stage for serious, permanent neurological damage when subsequent vaccines are given.

These COVID-19 vaccines produce more powerful immune stimulation than traditional vaccines, meaning the risk to children will be much higher, not just for neurological damage but for death.

There are over one million children suffering with autism spectrum disorders whose lives have been ruined by the extreme vaccine schedule thus far. This will pale in comparison to what the COVID-19 vaccines will do to our youth.

Special Danger to Women in General

From the reports now seen in the VAERS system, all women are at risk from these vaccines, especially to their reproductive health. Studies have shown that the spike protein released by these vaccines, contains a protein that strongly resembles a protein essential to a successful pregnancy (called syncytin-1). Activating the immune system against this spike protein would mean that a young woman may never be able to get pregnant.

Other studies indicate that the vaccines are also causing a number of menstrual problems. These include:

  • Extensive bleeding with blood clots
  • Prolonged period (even a month long)
  • Severe cramping
  • Premature menopause
  • Delayed or absent periods

Excessive bleeding could lead to severe iron deficiency which is associated with a number of medical disorders besides anemia. None of the clinical trials before these vaccines were released even looked at the effect on a woman’s menstrual cycles.

Heart Inflammation

The VAERS report identified 75 cases of myocarditis after the mRNA vaccines. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle which can lead to progressive heart failure and arrhythmias. Details leaked from the Israeli Health Ministry linked 62 cases of myocarditis including 2 deaths with the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six of the cases were associated with the second dose. The ages spanned from 18 years of age to age 30. The VAERS reported cases of myocarditis spanned from age 17 to age 44 years.

Vaccine-Induced Autoimmune Diseases

Two recent studies examined the cross-reactivity of a number of human tissue components and the spike protein. Both studies found extensive cross-reactivity, which means that these vaccines can induce severe autoimmune diseases in a great number of tissues and organs. This includes autoimmune thyroiditis, autoimmune diabetes, systemic Lupus, uveitis, psoriasis, autoimmune kidney disease, autoimmune encephalitis and many more diseases. The onset of these autoimmune disorders can be delayed by months, years and even decades after the vaccines.

Two separate studies found severe cross-reactivity between the spike proteins and human tissues and cell components. One of these cell components includes the mitochondria, the source of energy for all cells. An autoimmune attack would cause severe weakness and impair a number of organs, such as the liver, the heart and the brain. Neurologically, this could translate into brain fog, confusion, disorientation, and poor memory and learning ability.

Vaccine-Induced Visual Disorders

Several cases of visual impairment and even total blindness have been reported following these vaccines. According to the World Health Organization’s European drug monitoring agency there have been nearly 20,000 reports of eye disorders following the COVID vaccines. These include the following problems:

  • Eye pain
  • Blurred vision
  • Eye swelling
  • Itching eyes
  • Double vision
  • Dry eyes
  • Periorbital swelling
  • Swelling of eyelids
  • Blindness (298 cases)
  • Hemorrhage in the conjunctiva
  • Blepharospasm
  • Eye hemorrhage

The fate of these individual’s vision in the future is a big unknown. Many have also reported, along with the visual problems, strange sensations in their head, severe headaches and difficulty thinking clearly.

Long Term Effects

While the regulatory agencies suggested a two-year follow-up for these experimental vaccines, no action was taken to enforce this. Now that the so-called pandemic is essentially over, there is no reason to continue “fast-tracking” this vaccine. The full procedure for vaccine studies should now be implemented. As the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) have never been used among the public, it should be classified as “experimental” until extensive long-term studies are completed and in a much more comprehensive and transparent way than they have thus far. No vaccine should be mandated, but an experimental vaccine certainly should not be mandated.

With 51 percent of the nation now vaccinated with these experimental vaccines, and with approximately one billion people worldwide, this will constitute the largest experiment ever perpetrated on the world’s population. No one knows what the long-term effects of this grand experiment for a non-pandemic virus will be. Potentially it could kill tens of millions, cripple for life far more, and sterilize great numbers of young women around the world. At this point we just don’t know. It has been suggested by some medical experts that brand new diseases may arise from the use of these vaccines.


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. Russell Blaylock, author of the Blaylock Report Wellness newsletter, is a nationally recognized board certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, he practiced neurosurgery. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored several books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, Dr. Blalock’s Prescriptions for Natural Health, was a Co-author of Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders and his most recent work, The Liver Cure.


  1. Michael Erman Julie Steenhuysen U.S. CDC finds more clotting cases after J&J vaccine, sees causal Reuter’s May 12,2021.
  1. Megan Redshaw. Brazil Suspends AstraZeneca Vaccine After Pregnant Woman Dies, New Study Links Vaccine to Blood Clots, More Countries Hit Pause. Defender 5/12/21.
  1. Tucker Carlson: Fauci More Responsible for COVID Pandemic Than ‘Any Other Single Living American’; Fox News (Reported on Defender website, 5/12/21.
  1. Nicholas Wade What’s the Origin of COVID? Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan? Defender 5/06/21.
  1. CDC Covid Data Tracker: cases_casesper100klast7days.
  1. Peter R. Breggan and Ginger R. Breggin. The Breggin Report. https://
  1. Rogin, J. 2020, April 14, State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses, Washington Post. https://www. safety-issues-wuhan-lab- studying-bat-coronaviruses/.
  1. Seneff S, Nigh G. Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. IJVTPR 2(1): 402-443.
  1. Arvin, A. M., Fink, K. Schmid, M. A., Cathcart, A., Spreafico, R., Havenar- Daughton, C. … Virgin, H. W. (2020). A Perspective on Potential Antibody- Dependent Enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 584(7821): 353-363.
  1. Buonsenso, D., Riitano, F., & Valentini, P. (2020). Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome Temporally Related with SARS-CoV-2: Immunological Similarities with Acute Rheumatic Fever and Toxic Shock Syndrome. Frontiers in Pediatrics 8: 574.
  1. Buzhdygana, T. P., DeOrec, B. J., Baldwin-Leclair, A., Bullock, T. A., McGary, H. M. … Ramirez, S. H. (2020). The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 433.
  1. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Alters Barrier Function in 2D Static and 3D Microfluidic in-Vitro Models of the Human Blood-Brain Barrier. Neurobiology of Disease 146: 105131. nbd.2020.105131.
  1. Classen, J. B. (2021). Review of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Risk of Chronic Adverse Events Including Neurological Degeneration. Journal of Medical-Clinical Research and Reviews 5(4): 1-7. https://
  1. Lyons-Weiler, J. (2020). Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID- 19 via Autoimmunity. Journal of Translational Autoimmunity 3: 100051. science/article/pii/S2589909020300186.
  1. Vojdani, A., & Kharrazian, D. (2020). Potential Antigenic Cross-Reactivity Between SARS-CoV-2 and Human Tissue with a Possible Link to an Increase in Autoimmune Diseases. Clinical Immunology (Orlando, Fla.) 217: 108480.
  1. Ndeupen, S., Qin, Z., Jacobsen, S., Estanbouli, H., Bouteau, A., & Igyártó, B.Z. (2021) The mRNA-LNP Platform’s Lipid Nanoparticle Component Used in Preclinical Vaccine Studies is Highly Inflammatory. bioRxiv 2021.03.04.430128.
  1. Vojdani, A., Vojdani, E., & Kharrazian, D. (2021). Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins with Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases. Frontiers in Immunology 11: 3679.
  1. Wylon, K. Sabine Dölle, S., & Margitta Worm, M. (2016). Polyethylene Glycol as a Cause of Anaphylaxis. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology 12(1): 1-3.
  1. Su, J. R., Moro, P. L., Ng, C. S., Lewis, P. W., Said, M. A., & Cano, M.V. (2019). Anaphylaxis after vaccination reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1990-2016.Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 143(4): 1465-1473.
  2. Shaw, C.A. (2021). The Age of COVID-19: Fear, Loathing, and the New Normal. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 1: 98-142.

Featured image is from

Next on the US Agenda: War with China?

August 13th, 2021 by Connor Freeman

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 2014, Lew Rockwell wrote, “Clearly the empire is targeting China…The U.S. seeks to encircle China and make it bow down before the hegemon. The increasing prosperity and freedom of China threatens the empire’s self-image.”

America’s new Cold War with China is a bi-partisan imperial project. In 2011, former President Barack Obama began it in earnest, dubbing it the “Asia Pivot.” The ‘pivot’ entails surrounding China with hundreds of bases and shifting two thirds of all U.S. naval and air forces to the Asia-Pacific, the greatest military buildup since World War II.

Putative outsider Donald Trump took office and sizably enlarged the U.S. military’s footprint in what is now referred to as the “Indo-Pacific” region and significantly increased provocations of China.

Now President Joe Biden and his hawk infested administration are escalating tensions with Beijing to heights previously unseen.

Biden has said bluntly that the U.S. is in “extreme competition” with China. In his first address to Congress, Biden said we are competing with China to “win the 21st century.” Space Force has plans for the moon to be a “militarized front.” They see it as a venue for a future war. Washington is spending more on the military and so called “defense” than at any time in the nation’s history. The Republican Party’s neocons say that even Biden’s 2022 national security budget request for more than $750 billion is not enough to counter China and are demanding that number be increased by tens of billions.

The Pentagon’s excuse for its record high spending is Beijing, the so called “pacing threat.” China poses a threat to the hawks’ world domination, at least that is what has been said by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. According to the general, since the end of the previous Cold War, America has held “unchallenged global military, political and economic power. With the rise of China, that is changing and changing fast.”

The U.S. Military Is Incessantly Goading China

Last year, while Americans were distracted by the COVID-19 crisis, Trump’s war cabinet seized the opportunity to dramatically expand military activity around China. U.S. warships and aircraft carrier group strike forces sailing in the South China Sea were reported constantly. In July 2020, according to the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative (SCSPI), a Beijing based think tank, the U.S. flew record numbers of aerial surveillance flights in the South China Sea and near China’s coast. The number of reconnaissance flights averaged three to five per day. In the same month, the Trump administration formally rejected almost all of China’s claims to the waters in the South China Sea. This policy has since been reaffirmed by the Biden regime. Under both administrations, the U.S. has been challenging China, using the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, inserting itself into disputes between regional actors there whom all have overlapping claims on the waters including over various, sometimes unmanned, rocks, reefs, islands, islets, and archipelagos.

Even if it means war with China, Biden’s administration has pledged that the U.S. will defend Japan‘s claims to the disputed Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. Similarly, Washington has promised the U.S. military will come to the Philippines’ defense in the event of a violent conflict with China, including in the South China Sea, potentially over the disputed Whitson Reef. The Whitson Reef, the site of recent tensions, is claimed not only by China and the Philippines but by Vietnam as well.

The Navy routinely conducts what it calls Freedom Of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), in the waters surrounding China, sailing warships through the waters, particularly in the South China Sea, usually provocatively close to Chinese controlled or claimed islands. Biden’s regime just conducted its fourth FONOP. Under Trump, in 2020 the U.S. conducted a record high total of nine FONOPs poking China.

In September 2020, record numbers of U.S. warplanes and spy planes near China’s coast were spotted and recorded. There were at least 60 flights including over the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Yellow Sea. The U.S. was sending refueling aircraft from Guam to replenish the spy planes enabling them to continue their operations. As Dave DeCamp, news editor at, has written, the SCSPI interprets these sorties as the U.S. potentially “preparing for long-distance attacks on targets in the South China Sea.” In February 2021, 75 U.S. reconnaissance aircraft flights in the South China Sea were documented.

Indeed, the Chinese Defense Ministry has declared that since Biden took office, the volatile situation in the region has considerably worsened.

As the South China Morning Post reported,

On the day that Biden targeted Beijing in his first speech to a joint session of Congress, Chinese defence ministry spokesman Wu Qian said operations had increased by more than 20 per cent for US warships and 40 per cent for planes in and around waters claimed by China, compared with the same period last year under Donald Trump’s administration.

During the current administration’s reign, U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups have been repeatedly sent to the South China Sea, including, in one instance, for dual carrier drills.

As Patrick Macfarlane, writer and podcaster at the Libertarian Institute, has elaborated,

In February, 2021, U.S. a reconnaissance plane flirted with the same airspace as a sortie of Chinese warplanes. More recently, on May 14, 2021, the U.S. Navy announced the deployment of two MQ-4C Triton drones from Guam to Northern Japan, the first such deployment of high-altitude long endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (HALE-UAVs) to Japan.

These drones spy on the Taiwan Strait, Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) bases on the coast, and military installations in the South China Sea.

In March, a U.S. Air Force RC-135U flew within 25.33 nautical miles of the Chinese coast, closer than any U.S. military plane recorded yet. In April, an American destroyer conducted close surveillance of a Chinese aircraft carrier the Liaoning as it was taking part in exercises in the South China Sea. The U.S. often deploys military aircraft to shadow Chinese drills as well.

The U.S. Navy even released a photo of officers on the deck of a guided missile destroyer, the USS Mustin, staring down the Liaoning. Also in April, satellite imagery revealed that another U.S. guided missile destroyer actually entered into the Liaoning’s strike group and sailed with it for a time, the aircraft carrier was returning from a deployment in the South China Sea to the East China Sea. DeCamp has explained that considering such reconnaissance can be accomplished with the use of satellites, the goal of these hyper-aggressive maneuvers is solely to ramp up tensions.

In July, reports indicated the Navy has been quite busy this year establishing an almost nonstop deployment of surveillance ships in the South China Sea.

As DeCamp has reported,

…U.S. Navy ocean surveillance vessels were operating in the South China Sea for at least 161 days out of 181 days in the first half of this year. The U.S. has five of these vessels stationed in Japan, which are typically active in the South China Sea for more than 10 days at a time, and there is virtually no time between deployments.

The SCSPI report said that the primary purpose of these deployments is “to monitor the dynamics of China’s underwater forces, analyze the scope of submarine activities in key waters and their entry and exit routes, and provide intelligence support for anti-submarine operations.”

Allies Increasingly Join the Pivot

In his aforementioned first Congressional address, Biden boasted he “also told President Xi that we will maintain a strong military presence in the Indo-Pacific just as we do with NATO in Europe…”

Thus, Washington’s allies are getting in on the Asia Pivot. The British will soon be sailing their new aircraft carrier the HMS Queen Elizabeth and its strike group which includes an American destroyer and warplanes as well, into the South China Sea. The warship HMS Defender is already there. London will soon permanently deploy two warships in Asia. This was declared in a joint statement with Japan.

Japan is a part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, otherwise known as the Quad, along with the U.S., India, and Australia. The hawks hope to make the Quad into an East Asian NATO style alliance.

Financial Times was told by a source “familiar with the strategy,” that “[t]he Biden administration is making the Quad the core dynamic of its Asia policy.”

Last year, in an unmistakable message to China, the Quad’s navies held war drills in the Bay of Bengal, their largest such exercises in more than a decade.

Tokyo has recently been hyping up the threat to Taiwan posed by China. In the event of a “major incident” in Taiwan, Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso went so far as to say that “Japan and the US must defend Taiwan together.” With more than 50,000 troops, Japan hosts the largest overseas U.S. military presence.

The End of “Engagement?”

In May, Biden’s top Asia official Kurt Campbell, head of Indo-Pacific Affairs on the National Security Council, was speaking at an event hosted by Stanford University where he portentously stated that our “engagement” with China is over. Campbell is known as the architect of Obama’s Asia Pivot.

“The period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end,” Campbell says, “the dominant paradigm is going to be competition.”

“For the first time, really, we are now shifting our strategic focus, our economic interests, our military might more to the Indo-Pacific,” he added.

Taiwan, Nuclear War, and the Neocons

In 2016, on 12 occasions, Obama sailed warships through the sensitive Strait of Taiwan. Trump beat Obama’s record last year by sending warships through the strait 13 times. Biden has been in office for just over six months and has already sailed warships through the strait seven times.

After the latest passage, China protested. The PLA’s Eastern Theatre Command issued a statement saying, “[t]he US is the biggest destroyer of peace and stability…and the biggest maker of security risks across the Taiwan Strait.”

Carlos del Toro, Biden’s nominee for Secretary of the Navy, recently vowed to the Senate Armed Services Committee that, if confirmed, he will “exclusively” focus on China and “…moving our maritime strategy forward in order to protect Taiwan and all of our national security interests in the Indo-Pacific theater.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley asked Del Toro if it’s “vital” for the U.S. to be able to prevent an attack on Taiwan by China, the nominee ominously responded “absolutely.”

In the worst case scenario, this policy could kill millions of people or more. This fact apparently did not mean nearly as much to Del Toro as his own petty career advancement.

As Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has explained,

It is crucial to understand that for China, the Taiwan issue is not merely a core interest, but an emotionally charged one. They are far more willing to pay extraordinary costs, sacrifice many men, and could risk it all to eventually compel unification with Taiwan. The issue does not directly affect our national security unless we get involved.

If we eventually choose war with China over Taiwan, we will at best suffer egregious losses in ships, aircraft, and troops; in a worst-case, the war could deteriorate into a nuclear exchange in which American cities are turned into nuclear wastelands, killing millions.

America should never take such risks unless our security and freedom are directly threatened. Fighting China for any reason short of that would be a foolish gamble of the highest order.

Although designed and overseen by liberal hawks such as Campbell, and led officially by Democrats like Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Asia Pivot as well as its ancillary exploitation of the Taiwan issue as a means to goad China has roots in infamous neoconservative circles. That is, namely the now defunct, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) think tank, founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan.

For instance, PNAC’s notorious September 2000 document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” contains an outline of the Asia Pivot;

Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status.

Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia.

These are the same neocons who led the push for war in Iraq, in which maybe more than a million Iraqis were killed.

The New (Psychological) Cold War

As is the case with Russia, Washington is also hyping up the threat of China’s cyber-attacks on the U.S. using unsubstantiated allegations spread like wildfire by the imperial press. This is likely done to create a state of hysteria amongst our domestic population. But it serves more than one purpose. In March, Andrei Ilnitsky, an advisor to Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, accused the U.S. of executing a “new type of warfare,” a “mental war,” a war being “waged for people’s minds.”

Without sufficient evidence, Moscow is endlessly accused of election interference, hacking the DNC, paying bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, poisoning Alexi Navalny or the Skripals, the SolarWinds hack, as well as assorted ransomware attacks.

These unsubstantiated accusations are deliberately capitalized on by America’s hardliners and used often as grounds for the eschewing critical diplomacy such as arms control talks. This tactic is also deployed to garner support for further expansion of NATO, the mass expulsions of diplomats, cyber-attacks, internet censorship, and more sanctions.

Similarly, the sadistic, ultra-hawkish Mike Pompeo, in one of his last acts as Secretary of State, formally accused the Chinese of “genocide” against its Uyghur Muslim population. Antony Blinken, our current Foggy Bottom chief and Pompeo’s neoliberal analogue, has since reaffirmed this position. This claim is circulated all over the media again and again with weak evidence that relies on “flagrant data abuse and outright falsehoods,” as well as highly questionable sources. The hype is used by Washington to justify multilateral sanctions and increasingly its selective decoupling from China in regions like Xinxiang.

Decoupling from China is an option that is talked about more often all the time by neocons in government like Senator Tom Cotton and others. It would drastically increase the likelihood of war.

Beijing is now being accused by Washington, NATO, the U.K., and others of hacking Microsoft’s Exchange Server, an email platform used by various corporations and governments worldwide. This hacking allegation dates back a few months and, in keeping with the established pattern with the claims against Russia, no evidence has been brought forward yet. The claim is unproven but may be exploited to levy more sanctions on China. Alarmingly, NATO recently included cyberattacks among other things that could trigger the invocation of the Article 5 mutual defense clause. And Biden is now saying cyber-attacks could be used as a pretext for a “real shooting war with a major power,” eyeing Beijing and Moscow.

Ali Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, has noted these unverified claims against China over Beijing’s suspected involvement in the Microsoft hack have been amplified and endorsed by western governments and the corporate press. Whereas in contrast, so many of these same entities seem unconcerned about Washington’s satellite Tel Aviv and its direct responsibility in the massive Pegasus spyware scandal.

Microsoft, incidentally, is a major donor to the Center For A New American Security (CNAS), the anti-China, neoconservative foreign policy think tank founded by the likes of Asia Pivot architect Campbelland war criminal Michele Flournoy. Flournoy has openly stated her desire for the Pentagon, in the event of a war, to acquire the ability to completely destroy China’s entire civilian merchant and military fleet within 72 hours. Before former Raytheon board member Lloyd Austin was chosen, Flournoy was considered a shoe in to head Biden’s War Department. She was failed candidate Hillary Clinton’s pick for the post as well.

As this columnist has written previously, CNAS holds enormous sway over the Biden administration, with many of its hawkish co-founders, associates, former CEOs, and members proliferating throughout the regime in several key positions. CNAS is also funded by a veritable who’s who of the ruling elite including, among others, the U.S. State Department, Taiwan’s de facto embassy, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Comcast, Exxon, Mastercard, the Japanese Embassy to the United States, Citigroup, Facebook, Georgetown University, Google, and Raytheon.

The Hawks and Their Death Toll

On the world stage, the American Empire is rapidly losing any vestiges of credibility it has left. While mass murderers like America’s top diplomat Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivancondemn China’s alleged violations of the so called “rules-based order that maintains global stability,” Washington backs some of the most criminal, genocidal, and totalitarian regimes flagrantly violating international law today, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The U.S. ruling elite relentlessly wages economic warfare against weaker nations like Syria and Iran targeted by the above “allies” as well.

Washington also maintains bipartisan crushing sanctions still levied against other impoverished nations, posing zero threat to the American people, like Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. Under these sanctions, just within Venezuela, experts say more than 100,000 people have been killed, many deprived to death of their vital medicines.

Robert Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, now the highest ranking member of the Foreign Service, along with then Vice President Biden, led a 2014 coup in Ukraine that put neo-Nazis in power on Russia’s doorstep. Paraphrasing Robert Parry, the late investigative journalist and founder of Consortium News, the ‘mess Nuland made’ caused the ongoing war in the east of the country which has claimed the lives of well over ten thousand people, mostly civilians and militiamen murdered by Kiev’s forces. The bipartisan U.S. policy now includes piling sanctions on Moscow, sending hundreds of millions dollars’ worth of arms to Kiev, and constantly conducting military exercises in the Black Sea. This has largely led to the current state of affairs, the worst U.S.-Russian relations since the previous Cold War.

Americans can no longer ignore that it is, in fact, their government, the world empire, with some 800 bases in 70 countries, that began this new Cold War and remains the aggressor. The U.S. Empire is the single greatest threat to peace and global stability. After all, it was Washington that unilaterally withdrew from major 20th century arms control pillars such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Open Skies. It is these jingoistic moves which have triggered a nuclear arms race in the 21st century.

The U.S. government has still not been held responsible for its recent atrocities including George W. Bush’s torture program, the devastating 20-year Afghanistan war, the Iraq War, as well as the ongoing U.S.-Saudi total war and siege on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. At the highest levels, Washington has even committed outright treason against the American people taking the side of al Qaeda and its affiliates notably in the wars on Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered in these conflicts alone.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said during the Vietnam War, in which successive U.S. regimes butchered millions, it is this government that is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

Getting Off the Path to War

There is no reason for war and brinksmanship, nor this mammoth buildup. “Renewed Power Competition” with Russia and China is a project of neoconservatives and other American imperialists. These hawks are ideologically bent on global primacy and “full spectrum dominance.” Their chosen brand of “competition” serves doubly as a gargantuan public works project for the military, particularly the Air Force and the Navy, and is a multi-trillion-dollar corporate welfare scheme for the military industrial complex. However, America is broke and $30 trillion in debt. This “competition” is at our direct expense, it undoubtably will further impoverish and imperil the American people. The new Cold War era will also surely suffocate any and all of our remnants of liberty.

To avoid the coming calamity, Americans and especially libertarians of all stripes can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines while their corrupt ruling class recklessly drives us towards war with Beijing and Moscow. At a minimum, we must promptly regain control of our foreign policy and, in the spirit of the Ron Paul Revolution, unceasingly pursue diplomacy, free trade, free travel, and cultural exchange. We can still choose peace.

China has not attacked us, but has been surrounded by myriad American warplanes, warships, submarines, missiles, and hundreds of military bases.

For what ultimate purpose do we suppose these hawks, who have killed so many, intend to use those warplanes, warships, submarines, missiles, and bases?


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 Libertarian Institute

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.


Police in Switzerland are rising up against the “Great Reset” by refusing to enforce government-imposed restrictions on the general public.

A group representing Swiss police officers wrote a letter to the Swiss Federation of Police Officers (FSFP) declaring that cops work for the people and not the global elite.

The group warned they will not enforce restrictive measures that disproportionately undermine the fundamental rights of citizens.

“If the measures were to conflict with the general opinion of the population, disproportionately limiting their fundamental rights, many police officers would no longer be willing to apply them,” the group wrote in the letter.

While the letter was received favorably by the Swiss public, the FSFP attempted to downplay the uprising by claiming it only represents a small number of police officers.

Adrian Gaugler of the Conference of Cantonal Police Commanders went further, threatening the officers with sanctions if they refused to enforce the measures.

swiss police say they work for the people  not the global elite

Swiss police say they work for the people, not the global elite

“An officer who refuses to enforce the law can be punished,” said Gaugler.

“Police refusing to enforce coronavirus measures is not unique to Switzerland,” writes Chris Tomlinson.

“Earlier this year, police in the Canadian province of Ontario rejected new powers given by the provincial government that would have allowed them to stop any motorist or pedestrian and demand to know where they live and why they were not at home.”

It’s not just in Europe where restrictive measures are being rejected, however.

Lawmakers in the United States are now also calling on the public to demand freedom.

As Neon Nettle first reported last week, Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has released a statement calling on patriotic Americans to rise up against Joe Biden’s tyrannical government to “resist” the “Great Reset” through mass civil disobedience.

Senator Paul has called on the public to stand up against unconstitutional lockdowns, mandates, and harmful policies being imposed by “power-hungry” elites.

In an op-ed for Fox News, Paul slammed Democrat leaders Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “tyrants.”

“They can’t arrest us all,” Paul declared as he urged patriots to “resist” the Democrats’ attempts to “destroy America.”

“We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads,” Paul declared.

“Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

“Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not.

“Not this time.

“I choose freedom.”


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: Swiss police are refusing to support ‘the great reset’/All images in this article are from Neon Nettle

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.


U.S. Media have played up the recent anti-government protests in Cuba as a harbinger of regime change and a reason for U.S. intervention

But they deceitfully hide the fact that anti-government protestors (funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and CIA) number only a few hundred, whereas pro-government supporters—in defense of the revolution and opposed to U.S. intervention—have been flooding the streets, not by the hundreds, but by the hundreds of thousands

The July 11th protests in Cuba had the Cuban opposition salivating with the hope of once again being the benefactors of an American takeover of the island of 11 million.

As we have seen in the last couple of weeks, this has not been the case. On the contrary, the 17th of July saw more than 100,000 Cubans take the streets of el Malecón in defense of the revolution and against U.S. intervention.

There were also demonstrations in other provinces across the island, altogether dwarfing the U.S.-backed opposition hecklers of the previous week.

Nonetheless, the opposition protests, although insignificant in size and duration (in comparison to the pro-revolution assemblages), have provided fertile ground for Western media to perform their traditional role in setting the stage for the imperial war drums.

The war drums have been played, as Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and the Cuban exile community have urged the Biden administration, to implement a “humanitarian intervention,” one that does not take airstrikes off the table.

Although a Biden administration pivot toward military intervention does not seem likely, Biden has sustained and expanded on the Trump aggression on Cuba. On July 22nd Biden implemented a series of new sanctions on Cuba and assured that “this is just the beginning.”

Whether this means military intervention is on the table is unknown, but what it confirms is that, without strong pressure from the American Left, his campaign promise to return to the Obama-era relationship with Cuba seems unlikely.

Although the July 11th protests, as Madea Benjamin and Leonardo Flores note, “pale in comparison, both in terms of turnout and in state repression, to mass mobilizations that have rocked Colombia, Haiti, Chile, Ecuador and other Latin American countries over the past few years—or even Portland, Oregon, or Ferguson, Missouri,” they are nonetheless the largest oppositional protests since the 1994 Maleconazo uprising during which Cuba was undergoing what it called el Período especial (the Special Period).

Situating this event in its proper long- and short-term historical contexts is necessary to provide a holistic understanding of it. It is not sufficient merely to point to the Trump administration’s tightening of the blockade, even if we agree that such actions are what immediately generated recent events. Instead, we must understand the blockade itself historically. Only then can we know how and why it is effective.

Conditioned to Be Sweet

Although for centuries Havana was an important port for the Spanish empire, it was not until the 18th century that Cuba became the sugar hub of the world.[1] Starting in 1763, the Cuban export economy was centered around sugar, a process it would sustain for the centuries to come. Forty years before the 1959 revolution “sugar accounted for 82% of Cuba’s export earnings.”[2]

This historically determined sugar dependency shows how the ancestral fingers of colonialism created the precondition for the Cuban economy being at the whim of global sugar price fluctuations. Beyond this, the centuries-long monocropping of Cuba’s economy, coupled with the destructive industrial means through which this monocropping took place, has left Cuba, according to the United Nation’s Environment Programme (UNEP), with “over three-quarters of its 6.6 million hectares of arable land affected by soil erosion.”

As the UNEP states, “The result is that Cuba imports 80 per cent of its food necessities at a cost of nearly two billion dollars a year—a heavy burden for any developing country, especially one that continues to suffer an ongoing economic embargo from a major world power.” In our globalized world every country is dependent on international trade for acquiring the basic necessities for its people.

Just think what would happen to the U.S., a country territorially about 90 times bigger than Cuba (with far greater soil biodiversity), if it were blocked from trading with the rest of the world and put into a commensurable position with the position it has put Cuba in. What would the material conditions in our country be like?

How would this trade limitation affect us in moments of crisis, when basic necessities are scant, and allocation is based on our market logic? If, under our current condition as the global hegemon, we have 42 million people experiencing food insecurity, the famines that would result if we were in Cuba’s shoes are unimaginable. Yet, no such famine has ever occurred in Cuba. Even in the toughest of times, rationing measures have allowed the population to get what it needs to survive.

The Cuban revolution did not come about in a void. Instead, it came about in a country shackled by centuries of plunder, having to face the results of forces that were already in the world before they were thrown into it. In this world, Cuba has international trade as an absolute imperative for its existence. The blockage of this capacity by the world’s largest empire represents a constant existential threat for the island.

Early U.S. Imperialism and Pre-Revolutionary Cuba

In 1898 Cuba ended its century-long anti-colonial struggle against Spain and began its soon-to-be half-century anti-imperialist struggle against the U.S. which, with a sprinkle of yellow journalism, intervened in Cuba’s war against Spain.

For Cuba, this was not just a transition from one master to another. Instead, this transition marked a qualitative leap into a new stage of capitalism, one which Lenin, a couple of decades later, would describe as Imperialism.

From 1898 until the 1959 revolution, Cuba would be militarily occupied three times by the U.S. (1898-1902, 1906-1909, 1917-1922), including a continuous occupation since 1903 of the U.S.’s favorite torture spot, Guantanamo Bay.

Nonetheless, even before the Cuban War of Independence, the U.S. was already engaging in practices that were making Cuba economically dependent on the U.S. For instance, in 1865, 65% of Cuba’s sugar exports were going to the United States.[3] Cuba’s sugar dependency became inextricably linked to its ability to trade with the U.S.

After 1898 the U.S.-Cuba relationship transcended dependency and entered into complete political-economic supremacy by the U.S. over Cuba. U.S. companies had nearly total control over the central industries in Cuba. For instance, by 1920, 95% of the sugar industry’s harvest was controlled by U.S. investors.[4]

A similar condition existed in other industries, “by the late ’50s, U.S. financial interests included 90 percent of Cuban mines, 80 percent of its public utilities, [and] 50 percent of its railways.” For a small percentage of Cubans, those who compose the first generation of exiles, this condition was a paradise: “In 1946, less than 1% of all Cuban farmers controlled 36% of the farmland, and 8% of the farmers controlled 70% of farmland.”[5]

For the great majority of the population this was a wretched existence, where 93% of rural households lacked electricity, 85% lacked running water, 54% lacked an indoor or outdoor toilet, 96% lacked a refrigerator, and fewer than half of children were enrolled in school.[6]

U.S. control of Cuba allowed the island to become a gangster’s paradise. Havana was the city of sin that would make modern-day Las Vegas look like it was owned by Puritans. A viewing of the classic film The Godfather II should remind one of pre-revolutionary Cuba and the Mafia-loving corruption of U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, who had killed about 20,000 Cubans by the time the revolution came to Havana.[7]

It is in this context that the revolution arrived. As Cuban revolutionary folk singer Carlos Puebla said:

Here they thought they could
Continue playing democracy
And the people who in their misfortune
Were being left to die
And to continue in a cruel mode
Not even caring about their form
With robbery as the norm
And that’s when Fidel arrived.

The Revolution, the Blockade, and the Historical Toolbox of Imperialism

Shortly after the triumph of the revolution in 1959, the new revolutionary government would implement an agrarian reform which would distribute land amongst the campesinadoand establish limitations for landholdings.

As a cherry on top, these reforms would offer compensation to the previous owners that was “fixed on the basis of its value on the municipal tax rolls prior to October 10, 1958.”[8]

Similar expropriation conditions would be offered to U.S. and other foreign companies in Cuba under the 851, 890, and 891 laws. These en masse expropriations eventually led to the nationalization of all of Cuba’s central resources and industries, establishing conditions where for the first time Cuba would belong to Cubans.

Although a partial embargo (on arms) had already been imposed on Cuba in 1958, in the first couple of years after the revolution the U.S. sustained and expanded it. Each activity the revolutionary government would take to implement distributive measures was met with increased pressure from the expanding embargo. Such increased pressures would often be met with further expropriations.

For instance, the Eisenhower administration prohibited the transport of oil to Cuba, forcing the island to turn to the USSR for imports. Then, as a reaction to “Washington’s orders, multinational oil companies refused to refine the Soviet oil, leaving Cuba no choice but to nationalize the companies.” This back-and-forth culminated in the Kennedy administration’s full implementation of the blockade in 1962.

The Cuban revolution, from its inception, represented a grave threat to U.S. economic and political interest in the region. Such a rejection of U.S. hegemony existing right under the nose of the U.S. was unacceptable in Washington.

Thus, from the outset, the reasons for the blockade have been clear. As Lester Mallory, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in 1960:

“Every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy [blockade] is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

In the same memorandum Mallory stated that “the majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent),” and there is “no effective political opposition.” Therefore, “the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.”

By removing Cuba’s historical and geographically natural trading partner and removing access to the planet’s largest economy to all countries which dared to trade with Cuba, the policy intended to “bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government” was in full swing.

Nonetheless, one would be wrong to consider the blockade the only method of force the U.S. has used against Cuba.

Instead, the last 60 years have shown that nothing is off the table, the toolbox of American imperialism is open to anything, from military attacks, attempted assassinations, biological warfare, and terrorism.

Some of these beyond-economic attacks on Cuba include: a) the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, squashed within three days; b) the 600+ CIA led unsuccessful attempts on Fidel’s life (some whose creativity is quite laughable); c) ten or so biowarfare attacks, most famously, as CAM reported, the 1971 CIA-orchestrated African Swine Fever virus spread; and d) the backing and funding of groups and individuals who partook in terrorist bombings, the cases of Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles are perhaps the best known, specifically the latter’s involvement in the 1976 bombing of Cubana Airline’s flight 455 which killed 73 people—both are celebrated figures of the Miami exile community.

As the 1962 Operation Northwoods shows, the U.S. government was considering orchestrating a “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” which “would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”

Effectively, the consideration was to terrorize U.S. cities to delegitimize Cuba and justify a full fledged U.S. military intervention. This surface-level assessment of the beyond-economic forces used to topple the Cuban government shows that, for the U.S., the means through which regime change is sought are irrelevant.

The policy of the U.S. toward Cuba, from the emergence of the revolution until now (with a slight variation during the Obama administration) has been the following: Cuban socialism must be overthrown by any means necessary.

Thus, over the last 60 years Cuba has not only been at the whim of the global market because of inherited colonial-era economic dependencies but, stemming from the breadth of the U.S. empire’s blockade and the variety of regime-change tactics used, it has also been dependent on the existence of a global counter-hegemonic force to American Imperialism. Until the mid-1980s the Soviet Union and the Socialist Bloc provided a global alternative that was necessary to ameliorate the effects of the blockade. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was left to fend for itself outside of U.S.-dominated neoliberal capitalism.

Nonetheless, even under the difficulties of the Special Period, Cuba was able to remain a global beacon of hope and, through the devastating economic hardships, it was able to sustain a revolutionary and innovative spirit that kept it alive until solidarity arrived via the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 and the subsequent “pink-tide” that swept across Latin America, creating the counter-hegemonic force that Cuba needed to re-stabilize itself.

It is a truly impressive feat that, even under such conditions as the ones Cuba suffered in the 1990s, it was still able to develop innovative and sustainable agricultural reforms which served as the precondition for its current state as the “most sustainable developed country in the world.”

Obama, Trump, and the Pandemic

It would take 55 years from the triumph of the revolution for minimal positive change in the aforementioned U.S.-Cuba relationship to come about. In 2014, though sustaining the economic embargo, the Obama administration would begin normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba, a process that was mediated with the help of Pope Francis.

This process, known as the Cuban Thaw, saw the easing of travel and export sanctions; the opening of a Cuban government bank account in the U.S., allowing it to free itself of the burden of having to handle financial affairs in cash; the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of “state sponsors of terrorism”; mutual openings of embassies; Obama’s visit to Cuba, which was the first time a U.S. president had done so since Calvin Coolidge in 1928; and much more.

Although this normalization process was mutually beneficial, it was the partial easing of the 60-year-old blockade weight off Cuba’s back that was the most significant. Within a year of the initial moves toward normalization, Cuba would have one of the highest GDP growth percentages in all of Latin America.

With the election of Donald Trump and the backing he received from the Cuban exile community, the minimal advances of the Obama era were rolled back. Trump’s cancellation of the Obama policies toward Cuba included restricting travel to Cuba, banning the sending of remittances, reinstating Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” and implementing 243 new sanctions on the island.

The effects of such measures cost Cuba $9.1 billion between April and December of 2020, a number which rises to about $1,300 billion when accounting for the six decades-long blockade and the dollar’s depreciation against the value of gold in the global market.

It is also important to note that the tightening of the blockade on Cuba comes at a time when its largest trading partner, Venezuela, is also facing dire conditions thanks to a similar blockade and various regime-change efforts.

Although an analysis of U.S. imperialism in Venezuela is beyond our scope, it is important to note that a central reason why the tightening of the blockade has been so effective in crippling Cuba also has to do with the pre-established and continued imperial policy against Cuba’s central allies.

While Trump’s maximum pressure strategy toward Cuba was effective in causing economic distress on the island, the emergence of the pandemic would intensify these hardships. The COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult for every country in the world.

In the U.S. millions have lost their jobs, employer-based health insurance, and more than 600,000 have lost their lives. Cuba has had to endure the blockade, the pandemic (resulting in the closing of the border and the commensurate losses to the tourism industry), and the U.S.’s exploitation of the pandemic to increase pressure for regime change.

The combination of the pandemic and the blockade has created a situation where, over the last year and a half, the Cuban government has struggled to procure the basic medical necessities to treat the virus.

For instance, in April 2020, with the pandemic in full swing, the U.S. blocked Cuba’s ability to buy ventilators. In the same month the U.S. would block a shipment of coronavirus aid to Cuba coming from the Jack Ma Foundation. Similar events have occurred throughout the pandemic.

Nonetheless Cuba, as the country with the most doctors per capita, has sent volunteer doctors all over the world to help countries deal with the pandemic. For these efforts the U.S. and its media puppets have produced unsubstantiated allegations of the doctors’ missions as “forced labor” and has urged its allies to refuse Cuban medical aid.

Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who expelled Cuban doctors, quickly begged for their return, as their departure left Brazil’s medical system in egregious condition.

However, the world has not been fooled by these preposterous allegations. For its courageous internationalism which has saved countless lives around the world, the Henry Reeve Brigade, named after an American who fought and died in the first Cuban revolutionary war with the army of liberation, has created a movement for it to receive the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Protests

On the 23rd of June, the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution concerning the U.S.’s embargo on Cuba. As CAM reported, the result was clear: 184 countries voted in favor of lifting the embargo, 2 (U.S. and Israel) voted against.

This decision marks the 29th consecutive year that the General Assembly has called for an end to the U.S.’s economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba. For 29 years the U.S. has been ignoring the near unanimous will of the world and has continued, as Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla stated, a blockade that, “like the virus… asphyxiates and kills.”

This systematic rejection of international will is at the core of the material conditions that led to the events of July 11th.

Source: Liberation News

The policies of the blockade and its intermingling with the conditions of the pandemic have led Cuba to a state where, months before the protests, shortages in various areas arose. As Cuban President Díaz-Canel stated in his speech on the day of the protests:

“This whole situation [blockade + pandemic] caused a situation of shortages in the country, especially of food, medicines, raw materials and supplies to be able to develop our economic and productive processes that at the same time contribute to exports. Two important elements are cut off: the ability to export and the ability to invest resources. And from the productive processes, to then develop goods and services for our population.”

These shortages, manifested through the annoyance of long lines, power outages, and rationing, ensure a quantitative and cumulative process of dissatisfaction.

The U.S. Capitalist media seizes on this dissatisfaction to further indict Cuba’s socialist economy, ignoring the impact of the U.S. blockade and long war on Cuba.

Further ignored is the fact that Cuba, despite a syringe deficit and vaccination slowdown, has produced 5 vaccine candidates, two (Abdala and Soberana) of which have already been shown to be safe and effective.

Overlooking the Underlying Source of Malaise

Like in Plato’s allegory of the cave, the July 11th anti-government protesters are capable of seeing only the immediacy of the shadows. In a world limited to only seeing the government’s role in rationing, discourse on the blockade sounds as irrational as the escaped slave explaining to the others what it’s like outside the cave.

Nonetheless, the misguided upheavals were not simply the spontaneous expression of a genuine opposition grounded and influenced solely by the Cuban situation. In these upheavals there exists an externally added variable which organized, funded, and facilitated these rabble-rousings as yeast does to water and flour when baked.

This external variable is the decades-long U.S. funding of the Cuban opposition and its anti-government propaganda media outlets under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which allowed television broadcasting from the U.S. into Cuba and also tightened the embargo and permitted Cubans who had become U.S. citizens to sue in U.S. courts anyone who had purchased property once belonging to them in Cuba but was confiscated by the regime after the revolution.

Yankee Meddling

Tracey Eaton, founder of the Cuba Money Project, has found that, between the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—the CIA’s two new fronts—and the U.S. State Department, more than $1 billion has been given to Cuban opposition groups and media, both within Cuba and in the Cuban exile community.

Furthermore, over the last 10 years “more than $300 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money has been wasted for these kinds of purposes.” These opposition funding campaigns have been most successful at enticing the island’s youth through the USAID and NED’s decades-long funding of the Cuban hip-hop scene and groups like Los Aldeanos.

Recently, the San Isidro Movement—whose joint work with Gente de Zona in the song “Patria y Vida” has become the token expression of the recent protests—has been shown to be heavily funded by the NED and USAID. As Max Blumenthal writes,

“Leading members of the San Isidro Movement have raked in funding from regime-change outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Agency for International Development while meeting with State Department officials, U.S. embassy staff in Havana, right-wing European parliamentarians and Latin American coup leaders from Venezuela’s Guaidó to OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro.”

In the era of woke intersectional imperialism, this afro-Cuban “movement” has been the perfect token for the regime-change goons.

Altogether, the uprisings on July 11th have not only had their source in the difficulties created by the combination of the blockade and the pandemic, but also in a heavily funded opposition which was intentionally created by the U.S. to channel the natural distress of the politically unconscious into the streets to protest the government.

It is important to note that the orchestration of the protests by U.S.-funded agents takes place a few weeks after yet another near unanimous vote against the blockade in the United Nations. The protests and the media treatment of it (examined below) help redeem the blockade-justifying narrative of the “Cuban police state” pushed by the U.S. at a time when international opinion is unanimously against the blockade.

People Fail to Come Out

Nonetheless, what is impressive here is how, with the combination of the blockade, pandemic, and U.S.-funded opposition and propaganda campaigns, so few Cubans were at the protests.

Considering the breadth of public and covert tactics used by U.S. imperialism, it has been a laughable defeat to see that all its efforts and spending was only able to materialize into a few thousand hecklers in the streets for less than a day.

These protesters quickly disappeared, given that shortly after Díaz-Canel told revolutionaries to hit the streets. Tens of thousands of them did so—chanting “these are Fidel’s streets,” “I am Fidel, I am Díaz-Canel,” “Homeland or Death,” while waving Fidel portraits and the black and red 26th of July Movement flags—dwarfing the anti-government groups.

Media Disinformation

The MVP (most valuable player) of the July 11th protest must be awarded to the media. Both mainstream and social media coverage of the protests tossed any shred of journalistic integrity aside and showed themselves for what they really are—lapdogs of the American empire whose sole function is to manufacture consent for wars and plunder abroad.

By ignoring the blockade, the U.S.’s exploitation of the pandemic, and the U.S.’s role in funding and organizing the opposition, the media were able to spin the myth that a majority of Cubans were protesting a repressive, one-party dictatorship.

For anyone familiar with the structure of Cuba’s participatory democracy, these “dictatorship” allegations are laughable, especially as they take place on the heels of the 2019 enactment of the citizen-drafted and massively supported socialist constitution.

A critique of the audacity and hypocrisy liberal democracies in accusing Cuba of being undemocratic and repressive—governed in reality as dictatorships of capital—is beyond the scope of this essay.

Nonetheless, it is important to ask what standing a government with the largest incarceration rate in the world—with just 4.4% of the world’s population yet approximately 25% of the world’s prisoners—to talk about repression in Cuba?

Similarly, what standing does the government, whose elections are 91% determined by who can raise the most corporate money, have to talk about the problem of democracy in Cuba?

For the media’s coverage of the July 11th protests, nothing was off the table: From fake photos to twitter bots, everything was fair game. For instance, mainstream media outlets like the Guardian, Fox News, Boston Globe, Financial Times, Yahoo! News and NBC’s Today have used images from large pro-government demonstrations in previous years and claimed them to be from the July 11th protests. CNN also used a picture of a rally in Miami and titled it “Cubans Take to Streets in Rare Anti-Government Protest Over Lack of Freedoms, Worsening Economy.”

After public humiliation most of these outlets have removed these “errors,” but their intended effect remained. One must ask: Was this an issue of ignorance or willful action? It seems hard to miss the massive 26th of July Movement flags in the pro-government demonstrations. It also seems unlikely that one would miss the southwest Miami street signs and the red Make America Great Again hats in CNN’s images.

In the case of Fox News any claim of ignorance is preposterous: In its July 13th segment with Ted Cruz, in which he discussed the “bravery” depicted in the images of the protesters, the image that appeared on screen in that moment was of a pro-government rally where the words on the sign—“the streets belong to the revolutionaries”—were intentionally blurred and quickly replaced by a clip of a Miami rally in front of the famous Cuban-cuisine Versailles restaurant in the Little Havana section of the city.

The U.S.-funded Cuban opposition has also been effective in creating false narratives about the protests’ size, police repression, and claims about the destabilizing effect the protests have had on the government.

For instance, photos of mass protests and demonstrations in Washington, D.C. (2007), Egypt (2011) and Argentina (2021) have been used and described as Cuban anti-government protests.

To spark sentimentalism, the opposition has also used photos of an 11-year-old boy who was shot in the face in Caracas, Venezuela, and claimed that the Cuban police shot and killed him.

To intensify the narrative of “police repression,” the opposition has created Facebook groups dedicated to those allegedly lost after being kidnapped or killed by the Cuban police.

These claims have been shown to be false. Such was the case of Juan Carlos Charon, who was alleged to have been killed but who appeared in a phone call with Cubadebate to be quite alive and angry at his image’s tokenization by the Cuban opposition.

One of the most repulsive tactics used has been bribes. As exposed private messages have shown, the Cuban opposition has attempted to bribe Cubans with phone recharging points if they beat themselves up and then make a video claiming the police did it.

Furthermore, there have also been fabricated claims intended to produce the narrative that the government was losing power. For instance, claims were made that, in Camaguey, the “people” had seized power and kidnapped the first secretary of the province’s Communist Party.

This information was quickly disproven by images of thousands of pro-government demonstrators and with an interview conducted with the (supposedly kidnapped) first secretary of the party, who not only affirmed by his presence that he had not been kidnapped but also attested to the conditions in Camaguey as normal.

The opposition has also used a 2015 picture of Raul Castro exiting an airplane for the Third Summit of Latin American and Caribbean States in Costa Rica and declared he had fled to Venezuela because of the protests.

This misinformation campaign was made viral with the “Bay of Tweets” bot campaign. Days before the protests broke out in Cuba, the hashtag #SOSCUBA began to show up on Twitter. On the day of the protests the hashtag started trending thanks to thousands of newly created Twitter accounts that were retweeting it at speeds impossible for mere mortals.

Although a clear violation of Twitter’s “coordinated inauthentic behavior” rules, Twitter allowed the bot scheme to unfold, propelling an en masse campaign to distribute the sort of fabricated information discussed above. Concerning this bot campaign, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said he had “irrefutable proof that the majority of those that took part in this (internet) campaign were in the United States and used automated systems to make content go viral, without being penalized by Twitter.”

This would not be the first time the U.S. has used a social media bot campaign to push regime change, as Ben Norton noted last year when the same tactic was used to prop up the right-wing opposition in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico. For instance, during the 2019 coup in Bolivia, there were 68,000 fake Twitter accounts made to support the coup.


For the U.S., as we have seen, the “by any means necessary” philosophy remains intact in its regime-change efforts in Cuba. The plot laid out more than 60 years ago by Lester Mallory continues today: Starve the population and agitate around their dissatisfaction.

Although new equipment has been added, the David and Goliath battle—a gigantic empire dripping in blood and dirt vs. a small, autonomous, socialist, and internationalist island 90 miles away—remains.

On July 23rd, an open letter entitled “Let Cuba Live,” signed by 400 prominent activists, scientists, intellectuals, and artists urging Biden to remove the criminal blockade on Cuba, appeared in The New York Times.

As folks living within the empire, now is not the time to criticize Cuba or measure its deficiencies against our ideals. Now is the time to stand in solidarity with the Cuban people and their revolution.

This requires doing everything in our power to push the Biden administration to end the blockade. The words of the late Howard Zinn ring as true as ever today—“you can’t be neutral on a moving train.”


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.

Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy graduate student and professor at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. He is an editorial board member and co-founder of Midwestern Marx and the Journal of American Socialist Studies. Carlos can be reached at: [email protected].


1. Franklin W. Knight, Slave Society in Cuba during the Nineteenth Century (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), p. 3.

2. Carmen G. Gonzalez, “Seasons of Resistance: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Cuba.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 16 (2003), pp. 685-732, p. 692. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Hugh Thomas, Cuba Or the Pursuit of Freedom (Boston: Da Capo Press, 1998), p. 557. 

5. Gonzalez, “Seasons of Resistance,” p. 694. 

6. Ibid., pp. 692-3. 

7. Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy, Cuba: Anatomy of a Revolution (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1960), p. 29. 

8. Richard C. Allison, “Cuba’s Seizures of American Business,” American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1 (1967), pp. 48-51. 

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Anti-Government Protests in Cuba Provoked by U.S. Embargo Has Right-Wingers Salivating at the Prospect of Regime Change
  • 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.


There is no longer any doubt that scientific information provided by renowned experts is being suppressed in order to protect the false Covid and vaccine narratives. 

The medical bureaucrats, politicians, and presstitutes tell us that the Covid vaccine provides a high level of protection and that the new cases or “delta variant” are among the unvaccinated.  This is a blatant lie contradicted by official reports from all over the world. 

We know for an absolute indisputable fact that 75% of what are labeled “new cases,” “breakthrough cases,” “delta variant,” are among the fully vaccinated.  We also have from the vaccine adverse reactions databases that deaths and illnesses associated with the vaccines are rapidly rising. A number of highly credible experts say that the alleged delta variant is actually the illnesses caused by the vaccine.

Another disturbing piece of information is that it is the vaccinated who are the public health threat, not the unvaccinated.  The vaccinated shed the pathogens in the vaccine just as Covid patients shed pathogens from the virus.  With half of the us population now vaccinated, the vaccinated people are giving Covid illnesses to the healthy population.  

The evidence is clear that the Covid vaccine is a lose-lose game and has made tens of millions of vaccinated Americans threats to everyone, included others who are vaccinated.

Never before in world history has such an irresponsibly dangerous experiment been conducted on entire populations.  According to the official EudraVigilance, MHRA, and VAERS databases, as of August 1, 2021, there are 34,052 deaths and 5,460,000 health injuries associated with the Covid vaccine Injections. As it is universally agreed that only a small percentage of vaccine adverse reactions are reported, the actual figures are much higher. 

If the concerns of some experts are on the mark, the vaccines will kill more people than Covid.

Read the following:

Three Charts The Delta Variant Scaremongers Don’t Want You To See

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve 

Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID


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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from UsforThem

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 under a year, more than 500,000 post-COVID vaccine injuries have been reported to VAERS — nearly a third of all reports accumulated over the system’s entire three-decade lifespan — yet regulatory agencies remain silent.

A few months before the first COVID-19 vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in late 2020, a global vaccine safety expert cautioned the rushed circumstances made it essential to “get [safety monitoring] right” by “intensively” and “robustly” scrutinizing adverse events following the experimental rollout.

As this expert stated, “Deploying any new vaccine based on data from expedited clinical trials into a population without a functioning safety monitoring system in place is reckless and irresponsible given the tools that are available.”

Moreover, she added, any investments needed to beef up safety monitoring would be “inexpensive in comparison” to the massive funding allocated to COVID-19 vaccine development and scale-up.

In theory, the U.S. has had a national vaccine safety monitoring system in place since 1990 — the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — intended to function as an “early warning system.”

VAERS and its U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) counterpart FAERS (FDA Adverse Event Reporting System) constitute the principal data sources that regulators rely on when pulling drugs or vaccines from the market for safety reasons.

Not only has VAERS never lived up to its promise, but there can be little doubt its glaring failures are largely, and malignantly, by design.

For example, when a government-commissioned study highlighted VAERS inadequacies in 2010 — estimating more than 99% of vaccine adverse reactions were going unreported and that one of every 39 doses of vaccine administered was linked to adverse events corroborated in vaccine package inserts — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) simply shut the project down.

Now, in less than a year, more than half a million reports of injuries have flooded into VAERS following experimental COVID jabs, including thousands of deaths. Yet a deafening regulatory silence has greeted this record-setting volume of adverse reactions, which accounts for nearly a third of all reports accumulated by VAERS over its entire three-decade lifespan.

How is the absence of “early warning system” alarm bells possible? In a recent commentary, “Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals,” an experienced statistician suggested not only have safety experts’ admonitions to get COVID vaccine safety monitoring “right” not been heeded, but CDC and other public health agencies have taken steps to intentionally hide safety signals.

It’s all in the algorithm

Statistician Mathew Crawford’s various articles have a humble aim: to “lay out the tools for how to think about difficult problems” that he suspects “many people are highly confused about.”

In the matter of COVID vaccine safety signals, Crawford performs a valuable service by competently scrutinizing the VAERS “Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19,” which, he notes, CDC published “without much fanfare” on Jan. 29.

Specifically, Crawford dissects a key data-mining tool outlined by CDC in the Jan. 29 document. The tool, called a “proportional reporting ratio” (PRR), assesses one vaccine against another — comparing “the proportion of a specific AE [adverse event] following a specific vaccine versus the proportion of the same AE following receipt of another vaccine.”

So far, so good — except rather than doing the job it is professed to do, the PRR instead appears to be shockingly impervious to safety signals.

Even for those with no statistical background, Crawford’s bottom-line conclusion could not be plainer:

“[O]ne vaccine that kills and cripples 20 or 50 or 1,000 times as much as a very safe vaccine will show the same PRR … and no safety signal will be identified by the CDC. By design … [E]ven if I take a cell … and plug in some enormous number like 1500, there is still no safety signal as per CDC definitions.” [Emphasis in original]

As Crawford points out, these undeniable mathematical patterns cannot help but raise suspicions that the PRR function is designed to “establish an illusion of safety” and provide “a reason to ignore the true signs of danger.”

Initially, Crawford was willing to entertain the possibility that incompetence, rather than malevolence, might explain his findings — but he quickly rejected this explanation, in large part because the mathematical defect is so brazenly obvious that even a “middling programmer without the fundamental mathematical training” would notice it.

In Crawford’s words, “There is a pride among geeks in identifying subtle mathematical or logical flaws in a system, and this is not subtle at all.”

According to Crawford, this leads to some stark implications:

“At some point, when the potential for conflicts of interest are high and the point of failure is fundamental to the task of those doing the job, incompetence should no longer be differentiated from criminal intent.”

The imploding safety narrative

Statistical tricks (and conflicts of interest) are not new to the vaccine or pharmaceutical industries, which have used them for decades to successfully mask the “chasm between vaccine rhetoric and reality.”

Even when drug warning systems seem to “work,” the lag time between reports of harm and regulatory action is, on average, 20 years.

In that light — with FDA speeding toward full approval of the Pfizer injection, Moderna gaining fast-track designation to test other experimental mRNA vaccines in children and adults and CDC benignly maintaining that the results of COVID vaccine safety monitoring are “reassuring” — it is not hard to be discouraged about the agencies’ continued ability to get away with misusing and abusing safety data from VAERS and other sources.

However, the safety narrative started imploding in a big way in late 2019, when the world’s top vaccine experts gathered at the World Health Organization and admitted, almost to a person, that vaccines are sometimes fatal and that safety monitoring is failing to capture the dangers.

COVID may have provided these worried experts with a temporary and convenient reprieve, but more and more people recognize that the premise that vaccine adverse events are “one in a million” is an utter fiction.

With injuries from COVID vaccines occurring on an unprecedented scale — and credible doctors and scientists issuing urgent warnings about short-term and longer-term damage — it may become increasingly difficult for the vaccine establishment to shove its problems under the statistical carpet.

In 1976, public health authorities were forced to halt their rollout of a rapidly mobilized swine flu vaccine, after a spate of negative publicity and some 4,000 serious adverse events — including Guillain-Barré syndrome and death — became impossible to ignore. This “medical debacle,” now widely acknowledged as such, became the focus of a 1979 episode of 60 Minutes.

With more than half a million COVID vaccine injuries now reported to VAERS alone, and many more reported around the world, current events dwarf the 1976 “debacle.”

Unfortunately, with 60 Minutes and its media ilk having abdicated their investigatory role, it is now more difficult to generate the kind of widespread attention to harm that typically mobilizes the public.

Last September, the global vaccine expert quoted above, Helen Petousis-Harris, Ph.D., wrote that failure to assess COVID vaccines for safety “to our full ability” would be fundamentally “wrong.”

Without corporate media support, many individuals and organizations are therefore holding unethical government officials’ and profiteering corporate executives’ feet to the fire.

They recognize, as the nonprofit Stand for Health Freedom recently noted, that the matter of data is not inconsequential: “The COVID pandemic is built on data,” and data are driving policies that are “changing the structure of our society.”


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

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Whenever one gets into discussions about the decline of America’s ability to positively influence developments around the world a number of issues tend to surface. First is the hubristic claim by successive presidents that the United States is somehow “exceptional” as a polity while also serving as the world’s only superpower and also the anointed Leader of the Free World, whatever that is supposed to mean. Some critics of the status quo also have been willing to look a bit deeper, recognizing that it is the policies being pursued by the White House and Congress that are out of sync with what is actually happening in Asia, Africa and Latin America, being more driven by establishing acceptable narratives than by genuine interests.

The problem starts at the top. One can hardly have a great deal of respect for presidents who appointed neocon or neoliberal ideologues Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pompeo or current incumbent Tony Blinken as Secretaries of State, but when all is said and done the area where the U.S. fails is most egregiously is in the personnel it actually sends overseas. It has far more non-professional ambassadors than any other country in the world. Does the American public know, for example, that fully 44% of American Ambassadors sent overseas under Donald Trump were political appointees, whose sole distinction in many cases is that they contributed large sums of money to the Republican National Committee? Though such individuals can sometimes turn out to be surprisingly effective, many frequently know nothing of the country that they have been assigned to and do not speak the local language. To cite my own experience, in my 21 years as an intelligence officer spent mostly in Europe I did not once work for an ambassador who was a Foreign Service Officer career diplomat and few of the political appointees I knew never bothered to learn the local language.

Part of the problem is that many U.S. ambassadors do not know what their job consists of. Ambassadors have existed since the time of the ancient Greeks. They were from the beginning granted a special immunity which enabled them to talk to enemy spokesmen to attempt to resolve issues without resort to arms. In the modern context, Ambassadors are sent to reside in foreign capitals to provide some measure of protection for traveling citizens and also to defend other perceived national interests. Ambassadors are not soldiers, nor are they necessarily the parties of government that ultimately make decisions on what to do when dealing with a foreign nation. They are there to provide a mechanism for exchanging views to create a dialogue while at the same time working with foreign governments to avoid conflict, whether over trade or politics. They should be bridge-builders who explain how American politics function, how the American government works, and at the same time educate Americans on how the country they are based in sees the United States.

By all these metrics, the U.S. diplomatic effort has been a failure and, at the end of the day, the United States taxpayer spends astonishing sums of money to support its global representational and security structures that provide little in return, rarely experiencing any notable successes and watching the reputation of the U.S. decline due to sheer ineptness. In my experience, the worst U.S. Ambassadors tend to be academics, which brings us to Michael McFaul, who served as Ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama from 2012-2014.

To be sure, viewing Russia as an enemy is a bipartisan impulse among the Washington political class. The neoconservatives and their neoliberal allies have both long been dreaming of regime change for Moscow, either because it is perceived as a threat or as an unacceptable autocracy. Given that, the appointment of Stanford Academic and Russia expert McFaul as Ambassador was intended to “reset” the bilateral relationship while also pushing the democracy promotion agenda and confronting various aspects of the domestic policies of the Vladimir Putin government that were considered unacceptable, to include the treatment of homosexuals. Pursuing that end, McFaul made a point of openly meeting with the political opposition in Russia. He thereby antagonized the officials in the government that he should have been working with to bring about acceptable change to such an extent that his term of office became untenable and he was an embarrassing failure.

But now McFaul has turned the usual Washington trick, converting failure into personal success. He is a regular go-to guy when Democrats either in Congress or in the White House need expert testimony on Russia and he is reliably a passionate supporter of the largely unsustainable Russiagate tale and all that implies. He is again a tenured professor at Stanford, where another top government failure Condi Rice, she of “mushroom cloud” fame, serves as Director of the Hoover Institution.

McFaul was recently bothered by what he described as an anonymous presumed “Russian troll” attack on twitter which had referred to his failure as Ambassador to Russia. This is how he responded:

“I have a job for life at the best university in the world. I live in a giant house in paradise. I make close to a million dollars a year. I have adoring fans on tv and half a million followers on twitter 99% who also admire me. I’m doing just fine without a damn visa from Russia. And I am not afraid to tweet under my own name. I feel sorry for people like you who aren’t brave enough to do so.”

Not surprisingly, McFaul’s message, which was replayed in a number of places on the internet, struck many as a bit over the top, dripping with entitlement and self-esteem coming from someone who had been given an important government job and had only succeeded in making matters worse. He responded to the criticism by tweeting an addendum:

“I wrote that message in a private channel. I did not expect it to be published. But it was still a mistake, I apologize. It was arrogant and idiotic. A swarm of Russian trolls was accusing me of failure, and I responded in a most unprofessional way. Explanation, not excuse.”

Well, it’s nice to hear an apology for a change from anyone associated with the United States government, but the point is that McFaul is symptomatic of much of what is wrong in terms of how the White House makes policy impulsively and appoints poorly informed ideologues to implement what has been decided. McFaul is not unique. President Donald Trump certainly set a precedent in providing a whole group of incompetents to support the clueless Mike Pompeo at State, to include Nikki Haley at the United Nations, Rick Grenell in Germany, David Friedman in Israel, and the ubiquitous John Bolton at the National Security Council. It is almost as if in the area of foreign policy, the United States government as it is currently configured is designed to fail.

The solution is obvious. The United States desperately needs a foreign policy that is based on genuine national interests. It needs to stop rewarding political donors and needs also to send people as Ambassadors who are sensitive to the culture and red lines existing in the countries where they are posted. That doesn’t mean approving what others do, but it does mean listening to what they have to say. If one wants to restore America’s credibility and its reputation, examining the McFaul experience in Russia should be an excellent learning tool and taking steps so as not to repeat that failure would be a good place to start.


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

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is 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 Gage Skidmore

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.


We hear a lot lately about the US billionaires increasing their wealth by more than $1 trillion over the past year, as Covid precipitated the most severe recession since the 1930s of the real economy over the past year–from the spring quarter of 2020 last year through the spring quarter 2021.

Over the same period, however, US stock markets surged to record levels. This past week in early August they attained record breaking levels nearly every consecutive day.

Much of that record surge in stock and other financial markets has been due to the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, over the past year pumping almost $4 trillion in virtually free money into the banks and big corporations even though they were flush with excess cash.

The Fed in effect ‘pre-bailed out’ the banks even when they weren’t in trouble.

Moreover, the Fed has indicated its intent to continue to pump free money into the banks and even non-banks at the rate of $120 billion per month, through 2022 at a minimum. That’s more than $2 trillion after the past year’s nearly $4 trillion–even though no banks are in trouble or need it.

But bankers and billionaires were not the only big beneficiaries of government bail out policies over the past year.

So were the vast majority of largest US corporations. Starting in January and February 2020, medium and large non-bank corporations began to raise trillions of dollars in cash by selling their corporate bonds at dirt cheap rates made possible by the Fed driving interest rates to near zero. Added to this cash hoard created by low Fed rates and record corporate bond rates, the same medium-large US corporations drew down hundreds of billions more from their credit lines with banks, then got $650 billion in new tax breaks from Congress in March 2020. They also got to cut their operating costs big time (especially wages and facilities costs) dramatically due to the shutdowns. The combined result was record income gains for big US corporations–not only for US billionaires! How big?

Reports just released in recent days reveal 89% of the Fortune 500 companies increased their revenue this latest quarter (April-June 2021) by no less than 24.7% over the same quarter in 2020 when the Covid induced recession began.

That 24.7% revenue explosion compares, by the way, to an average quarterly revenue gain of 4.5% over the past 5 (non-recession) years; and 3.4% average over the preceding 10 years after the last official recession ended in 2009.

So Corporate America did fantastically well as result of the recession, not just the ‘tip of the wealth receiving iceberg’, US billionaires!

In contrast to the record gains of billionaires, stock shareholders, and big corporations in general, over the same past year, more than 35 million American workers lost their jobs at one time or another. And at least 17 million are still jobless: 12m are still collecting unemployment benefits + 3m dropped out of the labor force + 1.5m are still improperly classified as ‘furloughed but working’ by the US Labor Dept. (which it admits was incorrect but still refuses to correct).

That 17m is twice the ‘official’ number of 8.7m jobless being pushed by the government and parroted by the mainstream media. Both numbers are from government sources, but politicians & media like to cherry pick the best number even though it represents only part of the total picture.

Most of the US work force this past year also experienced big wage cuts, due in part to the massive unemployment (no job equals a total wage cut), or reduced hours of work (millions converted to part time from full time work), or just lower hourly pay over the same period. Wage collapse at the middle to lower end of the structure of wages in the US left the highest paid, still working, receiving their higher salaries and pay. That raised the average pay in general while the vast majority saw their actual wages collapse. (Government & media also like to report this distorted figure of rising wages over the past year as well).

As the economy has begun to reopen again this summer 2021, some workers have returned to work but now it appears that pace is slowing.

The June & July jobs reports by the labor dept reflect a pick up of rehiring as many service industry workers have begun returning to work. But these aren’t ‘job gains’ or new jobs in the economy. They are ‘job returns’. Moreover, signs are now emerging that the rehiring is beginning to slow. Many industries and companies do not have plans to return all laid off this past year back to work. They have already begun to implement AI and other technologies that allow them to displace workers with machines and software. And they are doing so.

Just as important, millions of workers who have returned have done so to jobs providing fewer hours of work per week and therefore less weekly earnings than before the recession. That’s likely a major reason why many laid off service workers are resisting returning to work. They’ll actually see less weekly pay due to hours of work per week reduced. Others can’t return because affordable child care is not available. Others aren’t simply because they’ve come to realize their service occupations were dead-end low paid and unstable jobs. Future waves of Covid could once again throw them out on the street. Who can blame them for not returning!

As for small businesses, they too have been on the negative receiving end of the recession, like the workers and unlike their medium and large corporate cousins.

Most accounts show around a million small businesses have gone under despite the Government’s fiscal bailout having provided about $1 trillion in guaranteed loans and outright grants since March 2020! With nearly a million small business failures, one can only conclude from that much of the $1T loans and grants bailout money did not get to those needing it most. Exposing how much of the bailout of small business was ‘gamed’ and by whom is a work in progress but will certainly be revealed at some point.

Like workers and small businesses, the nearly 75 million renters (in 48 million rental units) have also been bearing the economic brunt of the pandemic. Many have been evicted this past year, despite the CDC-federal govt ‘moratorium’ on rent payments. That moratorium–extended several times but now set to completely end by October 2021–has never been total. It has only covered rental units that have been supported some way by federal subsidies or rules. Millions have already fallen through the moratorium cracks. And the floor will collapse for all come October. (Only six states have supplemental state rent moratoria in place–none in the south or midwest).

In recent weeks the fight over evicting renters has emerged in the media, along with reports that $47 billion of the March 2020 ‘Cares Act’ $52B earmarked for renter assistance has yet to get into the economy. The media likes to portray this as due to government bureaucratic bungling. But it ignores the fact that resistance by landlords to process the rent assistance is likely the real cause of the failure to disburse funds. Some landlords don’t like the fact that the government assistance funds only cover 80% of the back rent. Others don’t want to give up the right to collect all back payments in the future; others want to sell or convert the rental units others want to retain the right to evict even though receiving the assistance payments and others want to continue to evict if even one late payment occurs. The public does not know–and media generally refuses to explain–that rental assistance payments must be filed both by the renter and the landlord. And millions of landlords have refused to file. Thus, the real cause of the $47 billion not being paid.

Then there’s the much publicized child care assistance payments that began this past July, as part of the Biden ‘American Rescue Plan’ (aka March 2021 $1.8T Covid Relief Act). While a positive program to make up for the discontinuation of supplemental unemployment benefits and rent assistance, what most Americans don’t realize it is only to run through December 2021 then expires as well. Furthermore, it is not actual new real money payments to households, but a pulling forward into July-December 2021 child care payments that would have been received anyway from the IRS next April 2022 when filing with the IRS for the 2021 period child care tax credit.

With recent developments–like the cutting off of unemployment benefits, the expiring of rent assistance, the gaming of small business bailouts, and the soon to expire child care benefits and end of student loan forbearance–one can conclude that a period of ‘creeping incremental austerity’ for the many has already begun–exempting of course bankers, businesses & investors for whom it appears the free money will continue to flow. Fortune 500 companies, banks, and US billionaires who have reaped massive income gains over the past year, appear exempted from any future austerity.


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 Charleston’s TheDigitel | CC BY 2.0

War, Herbicides and Moral Disengagement

August 13th, 2021 by Robert C. Koehler

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.


And the least secret agent of all . . . Agent Orange!

On August 10, 1961, the United States, several years before it actually sent troops, started poisoning the forests and crops of Vietnam with herbicides. The purpose: to deprive our declared enemy, the commies of Ho Chi Minh, of food and ground cover that allowed them to trek from North to South. It was called, innocuously, Operation Ranch Hand.

Agent Orange, the most powerful of the herbicides used in Operation Ranch Hand, contained dioxin, one of the most toxic substances on the planet. We dropped 20 million gallons of this and other herbicides on Vietnam, contaminating 7,000 square miles of its forests. Half a century later, we are fully aware of the consequences of this strategic decision, not just for the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Cambodians, but also for many American troops: hundreds of thousands of deaths and debilitating illnesses, horrific birth defects, unending hell.

History, in all its moral primness, has relegated our use of Agent Orange to the status of “controversial.”

Much to my amazement, I learned the other day that August 10 is now a day with official status. Numerous international organizations, many of them Vietnamese, have declared it Agent Orange Awareness Day.

I say, let’s keep this awareness alive and evolving at least for the next decade, which is how long the United States continued to wage its chemical warfare on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. And they didn’t wage it in ignorant innocence. Top military leaders, whose personal lives, of course, were unaffected by Agent Orange, were fully aware of its toxicity.

This raises what I choose to call The Question from Hell: How is it possible to make such a decision — to place short-term military strategy ahead of moral restraint and compassion for civilians? And this leads to a second, larger question: Why are military and political leaders so unwilling or unable to envision the long-term consequences of their decisions, that is to say, the consequences that utterly transcend the significance of the war they’re trying to win? Why are they so indifferent? Why are they so . . . stupid?

Pondering these questions was how I spent Agent Orange Awareness Day. Whether the U.S. won or lost the war, stopped or failed to stop the communist dominoes from tipping, the landscape would still be ravaged, the infected would still be dying, newborns would still have shocking birth defects (missing limbs, extra limbs, misplaced organs and so much more).

As the War Legacies Project notes on its website, the U.S. was trying to fight an “invisible enemy” who was hiding in the jungle, living off the land, by — what’s the big deal? — killing the jungle itself. As a result: “Ever since the war’s ending, the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have been saddled with an invisible enemy of their own.”

To sum it up as simply as possible, war is insane — and growing ever more so. The military establishment isn’t just brutal and cruel. It is so advanced in the technology of lethality that its capable of destroying the world. Hasn’t the time come to defund war — completely! — and rethink how we deal with conflict?

Well yes, of course, but we all know this isn’t going to happen. Nonetheless, the creation of Agent Orange Awareness Day could well be a moment of human awakening, a chance for there to be a collective focus on that Question from Hell: Why?

Here’s a starting place, thanks to psychologist Albert Bandura, as quoted by Russell P. Johnson in an essay published by the University of Chicago Divinity School. In essence, Bandura has sought an answer to the Question. What gives political leaders the wherewithal to violate basic human values — established moral standards — and perpetrate the inhumanity of war?

He calls the phenomenon of doing so “moral disengagement” and posits four forms that this behavior takes:

1. Euphemistic labeling: We may drop bombs and kill dozens or hundreds or thousands of civilians, including children, but the action is described by the lapdog media as, simply, an “airstrike.” We may torture Iraqi detainees but it’s not such a big deal when we call it “enhanced interrogation.” We may poison the jungles of Southeast Asia, but what the heck, there’s Jed Clampett leading the way in “Operation Ranch Hand.” The list of military euphemisms goes on and on and on.

2. Advantageous comparison. If the enemy you’re fighting is evil — and he always is — the actions you take to defeat him, whatever they are, are ipso facto justified. The alternative is doing nothing, a la Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler. Violent response to evil — carpet-bombing Hamburg or Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki — is not simply justifiable but the essence of morally necessity.

3. Displaced responsibility. I was just following orders, cries the Buchenwald guard. I did what I was told. As Johnson writes: “Decisions are made and justified without anyone ever having the sense of a moral threshold being crossed.” Indeed, “an entire society can rely on displacement of responsibility to shield themselves from moral scrutiny.” A pernicious side effect of this is known as “moral injury.” Once a soldier is out of the military, the justification for killing someone may completely vanish; the result is a high suicide rate among vets.

4. Attribution of blame. They made us do it! “One’s actions are treated as mere reactions, caused not by one’s own decisions but by the actions of the enemy,” Johnson writes. “. . . If our actions are excessive or barbaric, it is the other side’s fault for driving us to such extremes.” When both sides in the conflict resort to this, which is almost always the case, Bandura calls the result “reciprocal escalation.” The war gets increasingly bloody.

Agent Orange Awareness Day, as I noted, was Aug. 10. I think we should spend the rest of the year honoring War and Dehumanization Awareness Day.


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.

COVID-19 and the Shadowy “Trusted News Initiative”

August 13th, 2021 by Elizabeth Woodworth

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 do the inventor of mRNA technology; the lead author of the most downloaded paper on Covid-19 in the American Journal of Medicine; a former editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology; renowned epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford; and France’s leading microbiologist – have in common? They have all been censored by a repressive media network that most people have never heard of. This network has outrageously conceived and conveyed a “monopoly of legitimate information.”[i] 

Exposing this uncanny censorship of eminent voices is especially vital to the fate of children and youth, who are being aggressively targeted for low-benefit, sometimes lethal, inoculations.


Since early in the COVID-19 pandemic, which according to the World Health Organization kills only 0.23% of those infected[ii], enormous fear and panic have been fuelled by the hourly drumbeat of a “one-voice” media.

An international process of editorial standardization has delivered unprecedented news coverage of the monopolized message:

  1. The pandemic threatens the survival of all humanity
  2. There is no therapy to cure the sick
  3. It is necessary to confine the whole population, and
  4. The delivery will come only from a vaccine.[iii]

Many people have been dismayed by the singularity of this propaganda, and how it could possibly have been achieved.  That is the subject of this study.

Introduction:  How the TNI Got Started

On June 24, 2021, a report from the Oxford-based Reuters Institute revealed that trust in the US media – ranking last among 46 countries – had descended to an all-time low of 29%.  Meanwhile, Canadian trust in media has sunk to 45%.[iv]

This downward spiral can only mean that people are going elsewhere for their news – a trend that has likely been accelerated by the emergence of a shadowy global censorship network called the Trusted News Initiative (TNI).

In July 2019, before the pandemic, the UK and Canadian governments hosted the FCO Global Conference on Media Freedom,[v] where then BBC Director-General Tony Hall announced:

“Last month I convened, behind closed doors, a Trusted News Summit at the BBC, which brought together global tech platforms and publishers. The goal was to arrive at a practical set of actions we can take together, right now, to tackle the rise of misinformation and bias….I’m determined that we use that [BBC] unique reach and trusted voice to lead the way – to create a global alliance for integrity in news. We’re ready to do even more to help promote freedom and democracy worldwide.”[vi]

The initial Trusted News partners in attendance were the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, and The Wall Street Journal.

This was the embryonic start of a soon-to-become global media-wide Early Warning System that would rapidly alert members to “disinformation which threatens human life or disrupts democracy during elections.”[vii]

Where did the idea come from?

The BBC had earlier responded[viii] to a call for evidence from the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology, citing in its first footnote a June 3, 2019 BBC blog entitled “Tackling Misinformation.”[ix]

The first point of that blog referred to a pre-pandemic March 3, 2019 BBC news report that anti-vaxxers were gaining traction on social media as part of a “fake news” movement spreading “misleading and dangerous information”.[x]

The June 3 blog also claimed a “mammoth” online scale of deceitful business practices and hate speech as problems needing “algorithmic interventions”. The online “information ecosystem” was “polluted”; the size of the problem “unprecedented.”  The BBC and other organizations would be looking at interventions “to address misinformation across the media landscape”.

Looking back at this perception of pre-Covid problems, the motives of the TNI network appear to have been constructive and reasonable.  However, there was no inkling at the time of how vast, repressive, and darkly persuasive these interventions were soon to become.


The action started. CBC/Radio-Canada publicly announced its participation in the TNI in September 2019, saying “this includes a commitment to collaborate on source authentication, civic information, media education, and other responses to disinformation.”[xi] The Hindu announced the Indian program simultaneously.[xii]

Two weeks after WHO announced the Covid-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020, Canada’s CBC reported that the Trusted News Initiative had announced plans “to tackle harmful coronavirus disinformation.”

“Starting today, partners in the Trusted News Initiative will alert each other to disinformation about coronavirus, including ‘imposter content’ purporting to come from trusted sources. Such content will be reviewed promptly to ensure that disinformation is not republished.” [xiii]

The media partners had now expanded to include Twitter, Microsoft, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

The TNI next agreed to engage with a new verification technology called Project Origin, led by a coalition of the BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft and The New York Times – with a mandate toidentify non-authorized news stories for suppression.

In July, 2020, Eric Horvitz, Chief Scientific Officer for Microsoft, remarked about authorizing the news: “We’ve forged a close relationship with the BBC and other partners on Project Origin, aimed at methods and standards for end-to-end authentication of news and information.”[xiv]

By December 2020, the BBC had reported that disinformation was “spreading online to millions of people,” and included minimizing COVID-19 risks along with impugning the vaccine developers’ motives.[xv]

In a June 25, 2021 summary article by investigative staff, TrialSiteNews asked the question, “COVID-19 Censorship: Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts?” and began its reply with:

“Since time immemorial, those with power have used it to control those without. In the modern world, big government and big tech represent the seats of power when it comes to who is allowed to say what. Of course, many think that “private companies” can regulate speech in any way they see fit. But from either an ethical or legal point of view, this is false. The argument from the societal benefits of free speech works equally for posting YouTube videos and handing out flyers on a corner.

Legally, the [U.S.] Supreme Court has long held that when a private company creates something that functions as a public square (think of a company town), the First Amendment comes into play. Way back in April 2020, it was already clear that the then-existing online socio-political censorship was going to expand into the world of science, medicine, and academia in the new COVID-19 era.”[xvi]

What is Disinformation?  

This question has been sloppily handled by the mainstream media, which often confuses “misinformation” (unintentionally misleading information) with what they mean, “disinformation,” which is deliberate.

Several dictionary definitions agree on that point:

American Heritage: “Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.”[xvii]

Merriam-Webster:  “False information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.”[xviii]

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary): “The dissemination of deliberately false information, esp. when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media, with the intention of influencing the policies or opinions of those who receive it.”[xix]

Given that these definitions specify deliberate government action, it seems odd that the TNI has identified a scattered online public as the source of intentional false information and propaganda – especially concerning elections and health policy.

What are the TNI’s Public Health Sources?  Are They Trustworthy? 

The TNI reports Covid-19 health policy from the world’s major public health agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This policy is passed down through national and state governments, who convey it to the public via their media and websites, along with local case reports (based on the questionable PCR test) and deaths.

Unfortunately, this top-down leadership has at best been illogical and inconsistent, and at worst corrupted by the vast profits of the vaccine industry.

Examples of either incompetent or corrupt public health leadership include NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci’s extraordinary contradictions concerning the protection offered by masks.[xx]

More astonishing is the fact that on July 21, 2021, the CDC quietly recalled the use of the WHO-supported PCR test, which since February 2020 has been the global standard for measuring Covid-19 case numbers.  This recall was eventually reported about a week later, yet it had appeared on the CDC website[xxi] the first day after the news that George Soros and Bill Gates had acquired the UK Covid test company, Mologic.[xxii]

The PCR test had already had a checkered history:  Its recommendation had been very suddenly approved by WHO after being hurriedly rushed to publication in Eurosurveillance,[xxiii] one day after its submission date of January 22, 2020.  Incredibly, it lacked peer review – an irregularity that was formally challenged by 22 scientists seeking its retraction.[xxiv]

Worse yet, this global PCR test, which amplifies fragments of live or dead virus found in nose swabs, shows many false positives (which are officially deemed “cases,” regardless of symptoms). A study conducted last year by the Infectious Diseases Society of America found that at 25 cycles of amplification, “up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture” tests.  Fine, but at 30 cycles culture verification dropped to 20%, and by 35 cycles, less than 3% of cultures remained positive.[xxv]

Misleadingly, most European and US labs have been basing their frightening “case” numbers – published 24/7 through the TNI – on 35 cycles or higher.[xxvi]

The most shocking – if not criminal – Covid leadership failure of all is that the WHO, NIH, CDC, and FDA have consistently denied the existence of the 85%-effective, cheap, safe and abundant early treatments for Covid-19.

Their only recommended option until November 2020 – a month before the vaccines arrived – was to sicken at home until you couldn’t breathe;  then go the hospital. (In November the FDA and the NIH allowed anti-SARS-2 monoclonal antibody products for mild outpatient disease in high-risk patients – but nothing else.[xxvii])

There was to be no government-sanctioned cure until a vaccine arrived.

The obedient TNI – not into investigative journalism – followed suit.  In spite of extensive evidence supporting early treatment efficacy,[xxviii] and although 56 countries have adopted early treatments,[xxix] there have been no TNI-approved media statements that any early treatments, including hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin (IVM), quercetin, zinc, budesonide, or Vitamins C and D, are effective in treating Covid-19 outpatients during the first 5-7 days of flu-like symptoms.

The denial has been so strong that in early 2020 many US state pharmacy boards –in unprecedented disrespect for the authority of physicians – banned pharmacies from filling HCQ prescriptions to treat outpatient Covid-19.[xxx]

In August 2020, it came to light that pre-licensure Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the mRNA vaccines could not be legally approved if there was an available alternative – that is, if the FDA had already issued an EUA for outpatient use of HCQ, as shown in the final item of this in-house FDA slide.[xxxi]

Apart from early op-ed exposés by eminent Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch,[xxxii] where was the investigative journalism?

Who and What Have Been Most Censored by TNI’s Early Warning System?

To support individual acts of censorship, the social media giants refer to the WHO, CDC, FDA, and NIH policies as their justification.  Discussions such as the source of the virus, early treatments, and vaccine adverse effects – if they originate outside of these agencies – are quickly suppressed by the coordinated TNI network.

We will look at seven of these suppressions, in order of their first occurrence:

Suppression #1:  The Source of SARS-2

The Trusted News Initiative very quickly got to work silencing “disinformation” about a SARS-2 connection to the inadequate Wuhan levels 2 and 3 biosafety labs. However, since former NYT writer Nicholas Wade’s thorough investigation in May 2021,[xxxiii] and the FOIA dump of Dr. Fauci’s emails[xxxiv] in June, the TNI partners, including Facebook and Twitter, have given up censoring free speech about a Wuhan lab escape.

Suppression #2:  Denial of Early Treatments for Covid: 

As we have seen, the medical literature is full of peer-reviewed published studies showing both the prophylactic and early treatment efficacy of a range of safe, inexpensive, readily available drugs and substances.

During the March-December 2020 period, these were claimed to be ineffective by government and the media in order to pave the way for FDA Emergency Use Authorizations for remdesivir (whose efficacy is now under question[xxxv]) and the mRNA vaccines.

Scandalously, hundreds of thousands of people died while waiting for the vaccines to arrive in December 2020. Why did they die?  Because their doctors were blocked from prescribing the repurposed drugs HCQ and IVM that have long been on the WHO list of essential medicines.

The TNI, by censoring the truth that the public so desperately needed, has been a primary enabler of this catastrophic, vaccine-friendly policy.

During July 2021, instead of acknowledging the early treatment evidence they had housed[xxxvi] all along (thus being directly complicit in these deaths), the government-media complex doubled down on its intense campaign to vaccinate every one of us.

Incredibly, on August 3, 2021, 16 months and 612,386 deaths too late, Anthony Fauci, in an excerpt supplied by TNI partner Reuters, “floats [a] pill to ‘knock out’ COVID early”, given once daily for seven to ten days.[xxxvii]

Suppression #3:  The Voices of Dissenting Health Professionals

While major health policy-makers such as WHO, CDC, FDA, and Anthony Fauci have careened from one unprecedented society-killing edict to the next, many eminent public health professionals at the tops of their fields have stepped forward to offer sane, traditional, contagion-control measures.

However, they have not been welcome in the media or the social media. TNI Director Jessica Cecil explained why, at the Trust In News Conference,’ in April, 2021:

“First, those pushing disinformation…are using apparently trustworthy sources. Anti-vax content often uses interviews with people who have medical degrees for instance.

And there is frequently a grain of truth to what is claimed. That makes untangling the true from the false harder…”[xxxviii]

In “untangling the true from the false”, untrained media personnel have censored the following prominent professors and researchers with outstanding publication histories[xxxix] and conflict-of-interest-free credentials. Each is linked to his or her Google Scholar publication record:

The TNI has also vigorously censored frontline physicians who have saved thousands of lives with early Covid-19 treatments:  Dr. Zev Zelenko in New York,[xl] Drs. George Fareed and Brian Tyson in California;[xli] America’s Frontline Doctors,[xlii] founded by Dr. Simone Gold; and the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FCCCA),[xliii] led by ICU/critical-care physician Dr. Pierre Kory.

A member of FCCCA, Dr. Joseph Varon, who is chief of staff at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, has had more than 1,600 media interviews, yet he told local Fox reporter Ivory Hecker that reporters will never discuss his highly successful MATH+ hospital treatment protocol – “because the news producers will not allow it.”[xliv]

Why not? Because his hospital-based protocol using cheap, safe, plentiful drugs such as methylprednisolone, fluvoxamine, thiamine, heparin, and ivermectin, combined with zinc, ascorbic acid, and vitamin D,[xlv] has yielded about half the inpatient death rate reported by the CDC.[xlvi]

And that is not allowed by those who direct the media – those whose inferable mission is a vaccine policy based on millions of questionable PCR tests, followed by a vaccine passport that by all appearances is the endgame.

Suppression #4: The Record Number of Serious Post-Vaccine Side Effects and Deaths

Record post-vaccine side effects and deaths have been reported online by the US CDC VAERs (Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting system), by the UK Yellow Card System, by the EU Vaccine Injury Reporting System, and by Israel.

In the United States, VAERS reported 491,218 adverse effects and 11,405 deaths from February 10 until July 24, 2021.[xlvii]

However, connecting these deaths directly to the vaccines is not straightforward.

In England, Dr. Tess Lawrie of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EbMC), stated in June 2021 that there were “at least 3 urgent questions that need to be answered by the English equivalent to CDC, the MHRA:

“How many people have died within 28 days of vaccination?

How many people have been hospitalised within 28 days of vaccination?

How many people have been disabled by the vaccination?”[xlviii]

Also in June, Dr. Lawrie wrote a highly-referenced 11-page letter to the MHRA Chief Executive showing that “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card System to declare the COVID-19 vaccine unsafe for use in humans.”[xlix]

Suppression #5:  Natural Immunity Stronger than Vaccinated Immunity

Very simply put, the mRNA vaccines only generate antibodies against the single synthetic spike protein that they instruct the body first to make, and then to provide immunity against. But if the original wild SARS-2 spike mutates, the altered virus is less easily recognized by the immune system and often escapes its antibodies.

Meanwhile, natural immunity, which has fought off the whole virus and remembers it through both antibody and T-cell immunity, is much more robust and effective – in spite of minor spike mutations.[l]

Given this fact, the world’s governments and media should have allowed proof of immunity through tests such as T-Detect, which is authorized “for detecting and identifying the presence of an adaptive T-cell immune response to SARS-CoV-2”[li] – in lieu of being vaccinated, for those who preferred them.

Instead, the confusing, superficially informed TNI has pushed only the highly profitable but increasingly failed experimental vaccines, which now, although they reduce risk in high-risk people, have “almost no value as a way of protecting others, so there is no benefit in vaccinating children, introducing vaccine passports domestically or internationally, or coercing young people to get a vaccine which to them is almost all risk and no benefit.”[lii]

Suppression #6:  Worrying Evidence of Pathogenic Priming/ADE

During early mRNA clinical trials, cats, ferrets, monkeys, and rabbits have experienced Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), also known as pathogenic priming or a cytokine storm. This occurs when the immune system creates an overwhelming, uncontrolled inflammatory response upon being confronted with the virus in the real world, and then dies.

The director of the Pathological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, has carried out over 40 autopsies on people who had died within two weeks of vaccination.  Schirmacher was alarmed to cite on August 3, 2021, “rare, severe side effects of the vaccination – such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases”.[liii]

On August 5, 2021, Israeli Dr. Kobi Haviv, at the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reported that “95% of the severe patients are vaccinated…85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people…We are opening more and more COVID wards…The effectiveness of the vaccine is waning/fading out.”[liv]

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, has explained that the susceptibility to ADE is greatest precisely during the long phase in which the vaccine tapers off:  “The vaccine in its waning phase is causing the virus to replicate more efficiently than it would otherwise, which is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement,” adding that all previous coronavirus vaccine development programs led to ADE.[lv]

It is essential that informed consent for Covid-19 vaccines include notification of the possibility of ADE, especially with regard to parents, whose children should be protected at all costs:

“The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”[lvi]

How many people receiving mRNA vaccines have been told this?  Certainly their Trusted News Initiative has not told them.

Suppression #7:  The Central Role of Co-Morbidities in Serious Covid Disease 

Only 4% of Covid deaths in England died without pre-existing conditions.[lvii] In the US, 94.9% had pre-existing conditions.[lviii]

How often has the pharma-backed media hinted that 78% of US Covid hospitalizations are overweight or obese? Or suggested that “hey folks, you might save your life by dieting”?[lix]

How often have we been warned that 59% of hospital admissions are deficient in Vitamin D?[lx][lxi]

Has the government-media complex ever mandated Vitamin D intake standards to take pressure off Intensive Care Units?

Has Tony Fauci ever told people to take enough Vitamin D when – according to his FOIA’d emails – he takes 6,000 IUs a day himself?[lxii]

Or would it have created insufficient fear to drive people to unguaranteed experimental vaccines for the TNI to let us know?

Conclusion: The Media and Democracy 

A primary motive behind the formation of the TNI may have been to eradicate the so-called “disinformation” that an insulted, indignant public prefers to the creatively irrelevant corporate-led media, aka “the presstitute”.

It’s not as if the media has a track record of being right about pandemics. For example, it trusted worst-case scenario modeler Neil Ferguson and the pharma-controlled World Health Organization over the 2009 swine flu “pandemic”– which fizzled out leaving governments to incinerate millions of dollars in vaccines.[lxiii]

Such industry achievements use “influencers” – falsely independent “experts”, including specialist journalists, think tank facilitators, and academics whose research is funded by industry or government.

Regarding Covid-19, Dr. Piers Robinson, co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, has judged, “It wouldn’t be an underestimation to say that this is probably one of the biggest propaganda operations that we have seen in history,” concluding “what happens is down to how people resist and how much force and coercion the authorities use.”[lxiv]

Indeed, the very foundation of democracy is that public wisdom should be consulted and given its head in self-rule. The public has the constitutional right to full information to form and express its own conclusions and does not need a coordinated TNI to corral and contain it.

It is utterly outrageous that the voices the public needs from the top public health figures at its best universities are being denied to its hearing.

A far superior job of investigative reporting is being done by the hard-working alternative media researchers without Big Pharma’s blood-stained advertising dollars.

Perhaps the TrialSiteNews staff has said it best:

“We think that disallowing good-faith medical information because the public can’t be presumed to properly weigh claims is infantilizing said public, along with dismantling the free speech culture that perhaps peaked in the 20th Century. The efforts now underway to completely suppress positive data associated with early-onset treatment prospects such as ivermectin or the squelching of any discussion of vaccine safety issues is completely unacceptable in a civilized, democratic market-based society. Those perpetuating such offenses are in fact on the wrong side of history.”[lxv]


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] Pierre Bourdieu, Sur la télévision, Paris, Seuil, 1996, 82.

[2] Ioannidis J. “The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data,” Bull World Health Organ., Epub Oct. 14, 2020 (

The British Medical Journal, citing this article, reported: “Clearly, mortality is age-stratified from covid-19. The corrected median estimates of IFP [Infection Fatality Rate] for people aged lower than 70 years is currently 0.05%, [2] which, for the population less vulnerable to deaths, is similar to influenza. However overall estimates for covid-19 are higher [i.e., 0.23%], due to the higher fatality rate in elderly people.” BMJ October 6, 2020 (

[3] Laurent Mucchielli, “How is built the ‘legitimate information’ on the Covid crisis,” UMR 7305, CNRS and Aix-Marseille University, April 2020 ( Translation from French.

[4] Rick Edmonds, June 24, 2021, by Rick Edmonds, “US ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media, Reuters Institute report finds,” June 24, 2021 (

[5] Global Conference for Media Freedom: London 2019 ( The Conference website states that “It is supported by Luminate,” ( which in turn was founded by the Omidyar Group ( ).

[6] Tony Hall, “Media Freedom: What is it and why does it matter?” BBC, 11 July 2019 (

[7] Leila About, “News groups and tech companies team up to fight disinformation; BBC-led project aims to build an ‘early warning system,’” Financial Times, September 6, 2019 (

[8] BBC – written evidence (DAD0062), undated (

[9] Ahmed Razek, “Tackling Misinformation,” June 3, 2019 ( 

[10] “Vaccination deniers gaining traction, NHS boss warns,” BBC News, 1 March 2019  (

[11] “CBC/Radio-Canada joins global charter to fight disinformation,” 9 September 2019 (

[12] “News majors to fight disinformation,” 07 Septmber 2019 (

[13] “Trusted News Initiative announces plans to tackle harmful coronavirus disinformation,” 27 March 2020 (

[14] EBU: Operating Eurovision and Euroradio, “Trusted News Initiative steps up global fight against disinformation and targets US presidential election,” 13 July 2020  (

[15] BBC, “Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and announces major research project,” 10 December 2020 (

[16] TrialSiteNews Staff, “COVID-19 Censorship:

 Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts?” 25 June 2021 (

[17] (

[18] (


[20] A video compilation from Justin Hart, @justin_hart, San Diego, embedded in his tweet, 26 July 2021 (

[21] CDC. Division of Laboratory Systems. “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing. Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing” (

[22] Alex Ralph, “Bill Gates and George Soros buy out UK Covid test company Mologic,” The Times, 20 July 2021 (

[23] Victor M. Corman, et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR,” Eurosurveillance, Vol. 25, Issue 3, 23 January 2020 (

[24] CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT. CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS). “Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board,” 8 November 2020 (

[25] Rita Jaafar et al, “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 72, Issue 11, 1 June 2021, page e921 ( 28 September 2020 at

[26] Swiss Policy Research, “The Trouble With PCR Tests,” updated June 2021 ( The authors note: “From a lab perspective, it is safer to produce a ‘false positive’ result that puts a healthy non-infectious person into quarantine, than to produce a ‘false negative’ result and be responsible if someone infects their grandmother.”

[27] NIH. “Therapeutic Management of Nonhospitalized Adults with COVID-19, last updated July 8, 2021” (–therapeutic-management/).

[14] Peter A. McCullough, et al., “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection,” Am J Med. 2021 Jan; 134(1): 16–22 (; Published online 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.003.  See also the very extensive website,; see; and see PubMed for further outpatient Covid early treatment, (

[29] “Global adoption of Covid-19 early treatments” (as of July 30, 2021), (

[30] “State Rules and Recommendations Regarding Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Other Drugs Related to COVID-19,” posted March, 2020 (

[31] FDA. “Considerations for FDA Licensure vs. Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccines,” July 29, 2020; see 10:20 min. (

[32] Harvey A. Risch, “The Key to Defeating Covid-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It,” Newsweek, 23 July 2020 (; “FDA obstruction: Patients die, while Trump gets the blame,” Washington Examiner, 19 October 2020 (

[33] Nicholas Wade, “Origin of Covid – Following the Clues: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?” May 2, 2021 (https:/

[34] See Dr. Chris Martenson’s Fauci takedown videos, episodes 7, 8, and 9 (

[35] Owen Dyer, “Covid-19: Remdesivir has little or no impact on survival, WHO trial shows,” BMJ2020; 371 doi: (Published 19 October 2020) (

[36] For example, it was reported in 2005 that “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread,” Martin J. Vincent et al, Virology Journal, vol. 2, no. 69, 2005 ( Virology Journal is well known to the NIH, and is available on its website:

[37] Interview with J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Reuters excerpt, 3 August 2021 (

[38] Trust In News Conference. BBC, April 8, 2021 (

[39] A scientist’s credibility can be estimated by how often his/her published articles are cited in the indexed, peer-reviewed literature. This is quantified as the h-index number, and can be found by searching an author’s name on Google Scholar, e.g., Harvard Medical School biostatistician and epidemiologist, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, has been cited 26,087 times and has an h-index of 77. (

[40] Board Certified Family Physician Vladimir Zev Zelenko, M.D. (

[41] Brian Tyson and George Fareed, “Doctors story of Light and Life: the Covid-19 Darkness Overcome,” The Desert Review, 2 August 2021 (

[42] (

[43] (

[44] “Ivory Hecker Exposes Fox News Managers Censoring Her for Reporting on Hydryoxychloroquine,” 16 July 2021; see 1-2 min. (

[45] (htpps://

[46] Holmquist, Annie, “The Media May Be Responsible for Countless COVID Deaths,” Chronicle: A Magazine of American Culture, 29 June 2021 ( Dr. Varon’s bio and awards are shown on Dr. Been, July 2021(

[47] United States.  CDC. VAERS (, via Karen Selick, 25 July 2021 (

[48] Kathy Gyngell, “Expert’s damning vaccine evidence,” The Conservative Woman, 14 June 2021 (,

[49] Lien Davies, “Open Letter from Dr Tess Lawrie to Chief Exec MHRA Dr Raine – URGENT Report – COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” 10 June 2021 (

[50] Sharyl Attkisson, “Covid-19 natural immunity compared to vaccine-induced immunity: The definitive summary,” 6 August 2021 (

[51] (

[52] Will Jones, “Devastating New Data From PHE Shows Vaccine Effectiveness Down to 17% and No Reduction in Infectiousness – But Mortality Cut by 77%,” The Daily Sceptic, 6 August 2021 (

[53] Free West Media, “German chief pathologist sounds alarm on fatal vaccine injuries,” 3 August 2021 (

[54] “Israel: “85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people,” 5 August 2021 (

[55] Robert Malone, “The Vaccine Causes The Virus To Be More Dangerous,” 29 July 2021 (

[56] Timothy Cardozo and Ronald Veazey, “Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease,” Int J Clin Pract. 2021 Mar;75(3):e13795. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13795. Epub 2020 Dec 4. (

[57] Table: “COVID-19 deaths by age group and pre-existing conditions”, 4 February 2021 ([email protected]).

[58] United States. CDC. “Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021,” 1 July 2021 (

[59] Berkeley Lovelace Jr., “CDC: 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese,” The Journal of Nursing, 1 March 2021 (

[60] Dieter De Smet, et al., “Serum 25(OH)D Level on Hospital Admission Associated With COVID-19 Stage and Mortality,” Am J Clin Pathol., 2021 Feb 11;155(3):381-388. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa252 (

[61] Mustafa Demir, et al., “Vitamin D deficiency is associated with COVID-19 positivity and severity of the disease,” J Med Virol. 2021 May;93(5):2992-2999. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26832. Epub 2021 Feb 9 (

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with COVID-19 positivity and severity of the disease

Mustafa Demir  1 , Fadime Demir  2 , Hatice Aygun  3


[63] CBS News, “$260M of Swine Flu Vaccine to be Incinerated,” 1 July 2010 (

[64] Piers Robinson, “Covid is a Global Propaganda Operation,” Asia Pacific Today, 4 August 2021 (

[65] TrialSiteNews Staff, “COVID-19 Censorship: Trusted News Initiative to Decide the Facts?” 25 June 2021 (

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Heroes or Murderers? Colombian Government Defends Its Mercenaries

August 13th, 2021 by José Manuel Blanco Diaz

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 government of Iván Duque this week spoke up in defense of the Colombian mercenaries who assassinated Haiti’s president Jovenel Moïse at his official residence in Port-au-Prince on July 7.

PSUV deputy Diosdado Cabello, during his television program Con el Mazo Dando, referred to statements issued by Colombian officials who,  before multilateral organizations, decided to intercede in favor of the former Colombian military personnel involved in the assassination.

“The latest is that the [Colombian] Ombudsperson’s Office asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the OAS for precautionary measures in the case of the Colombian mercenaries who are detained in Haiti for the assassination of Jovenel Moïse,” said Cabello. “Colombia came out to defend its mercenaries.”

In addition, Cabello displayed items published by Colombian news outlets reporting how the relatives of the accused “asked, among other things, that they not call their loved ones mercenaries.” He added that in the midst of these demands a group of people displayed banners demanding “a fair trial for heroes in Haiti.”

In this sense, he reflected on the narrative that the Colombian media is trying to manufacture for the public, based on the treatment that the mercenaries have received in recent days. “The guys are heroes, because they went to assassinate a president,” proposed Cabello. “Duque sent them to assassinate a president.”

Terrorism industry

On the other hand, Diosdado Cabello recalled that Iván Duque, who sent terrorists contracted to kill the president of Haiti, tried to impose another false positive concerning the alleged attack against him, for which Duque is trying to hold the government of President Nicolás Maduro responsible.

“By the way, one of the military ‘heroes’ captured in Haiti is under investigation for false positives in Colombia,” recalled the first vice president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). In Colombia’s false positive (falsos positivos) scandal, members of the military lured innocent Colombians to remote parts of the country with various deceitful promises, then killed them and presented their corpses as those of guerrilla insurgents in order to receive promotions, bonuses, and other military benefits. In addition, another mercenary is the cousin of Ivan Duque’s National Security Advisor, Rafael Guarían.

Likewise, Cabello cited a statement by the Vice President and Foreign Minister of Colombia, Marta Lucía Ramírez, who said that she spoke personally with the relatives of the military personnel involved in the terrorist actions that ended the life of the head of State of Haiti.

Cabello added that the Colombian government, protected by US power groups, is singled out daily as the world champion in drug trafficking, paramilitary criminals, mercenaries, internally displaced persons, massacres, false positives, journalists killed, and persecution.


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.

José Manuel Blanco Diaz is Vice President of the Radio Miraflores Foundation, Presenter of UCV Social Communication and UCV announcer.

Featured image: Expensive poster—of the type printed at Kinko’s—in Colombia demanding a “fair trial for our heroes in Haiti, they were hired by legal ‘social’ security companies and they were tricked.” Colombia never ceases to amaze people around the world, commented Orinoco Tribune’s editor. Photo courtesy of RedRadioVE.

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 ironic that former US president George W. Bush, who invaded Afghanistan in 2001, should criticise incumbent Joe Biden for withdrawing US troops from that country, leaving it wide open to a resurgent Taliban. In an interview last month with Germany’s Deutche Welle, before the Taliban offensive had achieved its current momentum, he predicted “the consequences are going to be unbelievably bad and sad”, particularly for Afghan women,translators and contractors who worked with the US. “It seems like they’re just going to be left behind to be slaughtered by these very brutal people. And it breaks my heart.”

These are mawkish words from the man who, without provocation, invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 before Afghanistan had been secured from a Taliban return. Instead of wrecking Iraq and promoting instability in the Eastern Arab World, Bush should have tackled US ally Pakistan which fostered, financed and fielded the Taliban before and after the US occupation of Afghanistan. He and none of his successors followed this prescription. Hence, the Taliban is back and advancing on multiple fronts in Afghanistan.

Biden did not need to abide by his predecessor’s decision to withdraw US forces, precipitating the pull-out of all NATO contingents from Afghanistan. If Biden had been pragmatic, instead of trying to court US voters, he would have stayed on, examined why Afghan forces remain ill-prepared to defend their country after 20 years of US tutelage, and remedied the situation with the aim of withdrawing in years to come. Biden mistakenly took the view that once Donald Trump proclaimed the abandonment of Afghanistan, this was written on stone. Biden’s pull-out could be a war crime if it leads to the mass slaughter, repression and exodus of Afghan civilians, just as Bush’s war on Iraq was a war crime.

Biden wisely did not maintain Donald Trump’s foolish withdrawals from the Paris climate change accord and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Both these decisions were disastrous. Due to Trump, the world lost four crucial years in the campaign to limit global warming, leaving us all at the mercy of unprecedented heat waves, cold snaps, cyclones, tornadoes and fire storms from flaming forests. Thanks to Trump, the WHO was financially stretched and crippled when it needed vast resources to combat the COVID-19 pandemic as it spread around the world. Trump also empowered anti-vaxers who have convinced millions of people to reject the vaccines which could save lives and slow and, ultimately, curtail the spread of COVID.

While he strives to repair the negative impacts of these wrong-headed Trump decisions, Biden has refused to reverse a second Trump folly: his abandonment of the 2015 agreement mandating Iranian limitations on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Biden pledged to take return the US to the deal during and after his campaign but his negotiators have, instead, stalled, by calling on Iran to revert to compliance first and agree to follow-up talks on its ballistic missile programme and involvement in regional affairs.

Tehran rightly argued that Washington should act first since Trump abandoned the deal in May 2018 and Iran abided by its terms for a year in the expectation that Europe would breach US sanctions. When Europe failed, Iran enriched and stockpiled uranium in violation of limitations imposed by the deal and reduced cooperation with International Atomic Agency teams monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Once they conceded that they could simultaneously recommit to the deal, the US has continued to stick to its demand to negotiate on missiles and regional activities although Iran has refused to discuss these issues. Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken has repeatedly warned that the talks cannot go on indefinitely although Washington is primarily responsible for the crisis caused by Trump’s withdrawal and Biden’s delay in re-joining the deal.

Biden has not, as promised, re-engaged with the Palestinians after Trump dismissed and ostracised them for refusing his totally one-sided “deal of the century” plan. This denied their right of self-determination and authorised Israel to annex parts of the West Bank. While Biden has partially restored funding for the UN agency caring for Palestinian refugees and other programmes, he has done nothing about Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, although its status is meant to be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians, and Trump’s legitimisation of Israeli colonisation, deemed illegal under international law.

Biden’s disengagement has emboldened Israel to mount yet another devastating attack on Gaza, continue colonisation, demolish Palestinian hamlets and homes, shoot and arrest Palestinians in the West Bank, and maintain its siege and blockade of Gaza, preventing its reconstruction and recovery after the May blitz.

On the regional front, since Biden took office, Israel has stepped up attacks on what it says are pro-Iranian militiamen in Syria as well as Syrian military sites and conducted cyber attacks and sabotage against Iranian nuclear and other facilities. When Iran is accused of responding by targeting two ships in the Gulf, the Biden administration, adhering to the usual double standard, has led Western powers in condemnation, called for the UN to hold Iran accountable, and, even, promised to join Israel in retaliating.

Biden’s policies have left Afghans to face the Taliban once again, brought talks on Iran’s nuclear programme close to collapse, continued Palestinian isolation and dangerously exacerbated rather than diminished tensions in this region. By failing to deliver, he also further undermined global trust in the US. Trump destroyed that trust by pulling out of solemn commitments, issuing unacceptable proposals and undermining the US democratic system of governance. Out of office, he continues his wrecking efforts and, apparently, plans to run again for the presidency in 2024.


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

Featured image is by Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Lima Group Loses Lima

August 13th, 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.


The Canadian instigated Lima Group has been dealt a probably fatal blow that ought to elicit serious discussion about this country’s foreign policy. But, don’t expect the media or politicians to even mention it.

In a likely death knell for a coalition seeking to overthrow the Venezuelan government, Peru’s new Foreign Affairs Minister called the Lima Group the country’s “most disastrous” ever foreign policy initiative. Héctor Béjar said, “the Lima Group must be the most disastrous thing we have done in international politics in the history of Perú.”

Two days after Béjar’s statement St Lucia’s external affairs minister, Alva Baptiste, declared: “With immediate effect, we are going to get out of the Lima Group arrangement – that morally bankrupt, mongoose gang, we are going to get out of it because this group has imposed needless hardship on the children, men and women of Venezuela.”

Prior to Baptiste and Béjar’s statements, the Lima Group had lost a handful of members and its support for Juan Guaidó’s bid to declare himself president had failed. Considering its name, the Peruvian government’s aggressive turn against the Lima Group probably marks the end of it. As Kawsachun News tweeted a Peruvian congressman noting, “the Lima Group has been left without Lima.”

The Lima Group’s demise would be a major blow to Trudeau’s foreign policy. Ottawa founded it with Peru. Amidst discussions between the two countries foreign ministers in Spring 2017, Trudeau called his Peruvian counterpart, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, to “‎stress the need for dialogue and respect for the democratic rights of Venezuelan citizens, as enshrined in the charter of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Democratic Charter.” But the Lima Group was established in August 2017 as a structure outside of the OAS largely because that organization’s members refused to back Washington and Ottawa’s bid to interfere in Venezuelan affairs, which they believed defied the OAS’ charter.

Canada has been maybe the most active member of the coalition. Former Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland participated in a half dozen Lima Group meetings and its second meeting was held in Toronto. That October 2017 meeting urged regional governments to take steps to “further isolate” Venezuela.

At the second Lima Group meeting in Canada, a few weeks after Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself president, Trudeau declared, “the international community must immediately unite behind the interim president.” The final declaration of the February 2019 meeting called on Venezuela’s armed forces “to demonstratetheir loyalty to the interim president” and remove the elected president.

Freeland repeatedly prodded Caribbean and Central American countries to join the Lima Group and its anti-Maduro efforts. In May 2019 Trudeau called Cuban president Miguel Díaz-Canel to pressure him to join Ottawa’s effort to oust President Maduro. The release noted, “the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Lima Group, underscored the desire to see free and fair elections and the constitution upheld in Venezuela.”

In a sign of the importance Canadian diplomats placed on the Lima Group, the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers gave Patricia Atkinson, Head of the Venezuela Task Force at Global Affairs, its Foreign Service Officers award in June 2019. The write-up explained, “Patricia, and the superb team she assembled and led, supported the Minister’s engagement and played key roles in the substance and organization of 11 meetings of the 13 country Lima group which coordinates action on Venezuela.”

Solidarity activists have protested the Lima Group since its first meeting in Toronto. There were also protests at the second Lima Group meeting in Canada, including an impressive disruption of the final press conference. At a talk last year, NDP MP Matthew Green declared “we ought not be a part of a pseudo-imperialist group like the Lima Group” while a resolution submitted (though never discussed) to that party’s April convention called for Canada to leave the Lima Group.

Hopefully the Peruvian and St Lucia governments’ recent criticism marks the end of the Lima Group. But, we should seek to ensure it doesn’t disappear quietly. We need a discussion of how Canada became a central player in this interventionist alliance.


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 Week’s Most Popular Articles

August 13th, 2021 by Global Research News

Delta Variants, PCR Tests, Isolation of the Virus: A Deliberate Worldwide Operation in “Cognitive Dissonance”

By F. William Engdahl, August 12, 2021

So-called Delta or “Indian” variant is spreading like chicken pox we are told, but not what that “spreading” means. Unvaccinated are accused of spreading COVID-19 to those supposedly vaccinated.

The Way to Defeat the Globalist Reset: Local Production for Local Consumption…

By Peter Koenig, August 12, 2021

The Globalists have semi-clandestinely introduced some kind of “Covid-Martial Law” that overrules everything that is an otherwise Constitutional Right. We are in most of the western world in a direct dictatorship.

J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve

By Doctors for COVID Ethics, August 12, 2021

Official sources, namely EudraVigilance (EU, EEA, Switzerland), MHRA (UK) and VAERS (USA), have now recorded more Injuries and Deaths from the ‘Covid’ vaccine roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began.

Worse than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

By Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Dr. Greg Nigh, August 12, 2021

Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA.

Video: The VAXXED Only Train

By Social Experimentalist, August 12, 2021

In another social experiment, Danny poses as a Covid Marshall and designates a carriage to vaccinated passengers only. Is this not a simulation of what might happen in real life, following the imposition of the vaccine passport?

The Specter of Vaccine Fundamentalism: Bowing Down and Serving the “God of Vaccines”

By Dr. Pascal Sacré, August 12, 2021

The issue, for me, is not to demonize vaccination the way fundamentalists demonize any alternative to their God, usually by attacking people who dare to talk about it. The issue, for me, is to tell people the truth: There are safer, more effective and less dangerous alternatives to finding the way out of this crisis.

Biden Must Call Off the B-52s Bombing Afghan Cities

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, August 12, 2021

It is horrific to watch the death, destruction and mass displacement of thousands of terrified Afghans and the triumph of the misogynist Taliban that ruled the nation 20 years ago.

Targeting the Medical Evidence: The US Challenge on Assange’s Health

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 12, 2021

The desperate attempt by the US imperium to nab Julian Assange was elevated to another level on August 11 in a preliminary hearing before the UK High Court.

Cuba, China, Latin America and the World

By John Ross, August 12, 2021

The US in Latin America is at present once again seeing a series of countries attempting to follow independent policies, corresponding to their national interests, and some with a socialist orientation, rather than subordinating themselves to the US.

President Pedro Castillo of Peru Comes Under Fire After Taking Office

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 12, 2021

Right-wing political interests within the Peruvian parliament backed by international finance capital have sought to besiege the newly elected socialist president of the South American state of Peru.

Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 12, 2021

It should be noted that while the HAARP program based in Gakona, Alaska was closed down, the US Air Force which managed the HAARP project, nonetheless confirmed that ENMOD techniques for military use are slated to continue.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Worse than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

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 Taliban are riding the high wave, and it’s been happening for nearly three months.

The beginning of August, however, was significant in many ways.

So far, the group has captured 65% of Afghanistan and have taken or threaten to take 11 provincial capitals of the country’s 34.

Faizabad, in the northeastern province of Badakhshan, on August 11th became the ninth capital to be seized by the Taliban.

Since August 6th, the group has also captured Faizabad, Farah, Pul-e-Khumri, Sar-e-Pul, Sheberghan, Aybak, Kunduz, Taluqan and Zaranj.

Fighting continues to be extremely intense in Kandahar city.

The Afghan Armed Forces are providing a semblance of resistance in some parts, especially in the besieged northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. President Ashraf Ghani visited the city to rally the troops, it appears to have had some result, but it all seems too little too late.

All gateways to Kabul, which lies in a valley surrounded by mountains, were choked with civilians fleeing violence.

The Afghan interior minister said that Afghanistan is arming local groups as part of a wider three-phase plan to fight back against the Taliban’s advances.

Taliban fighters could isolate Afghanistan’s capital in 30 days and possibly take it over in 90, US intelligence estimated.

The new assessment of how long Kabul could stand is a result of the rapid gains the Taliban had been making around the country as US-led foreign forces leave.

This all comes down to how the fighting will progress from now on. The Afghanistan’s government is attempting to shake things up, with the chief of staff of the army, as well as the commander of the special operations corps being shuffled.

The information coming out of Afghanistan is mostly one-sided, with Taliban capturing more cities and districts, as well as boasting of their various successes.

On August 11, the Taliban seized a Mi-35 attack helicopter that was left behind by the Afghan government forces at Kunduz Airport in northeastern Afghanistan.

Footage from different parts of Kunduz confirms that the Taliban seized at least dozens of military vehicles, mainly US-made Humvees.

Furthermore, the Taliban downed an Iranian surveillance drone over the southwestern province of Farah. The group released photos showing the wreckage of the drone, that was identified as an Iranian-made Qods Mohajer-2N.

The Taliban’s recent advance in the southwestern and northwestern parts of Afghanistan created an influx of refugees to Iran. Despite maintaining some low-level relations with the Taliban, Tehran appears to be preparing for the worst-case scenario.

As such, Tehran likely also expects the Taliban to be victorious in the fight for Afghanistan, and needs to keep a close eye, similarly to what Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are doing, to protect their borders and guarantee their security.


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


PayPal: [email protected], or via:

A Day in the Death of British Justice

August 13th, 2021 by John Pilger

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 sat in Court 4 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London yesterday with Stella Moris, Julian Assange’s partner. I have known Stella for as long as I have known Julian. She, too, is a voice of freedom, coming from a family that fought the fascism of Apartheid. Today, her name was uttered in court by a barrister and a judge, forgettable people were it not for the power of their endowed privilege.

The barrister, Clair Dobbin, is in the pay of the regime in Washington, first Trump’s then Biden’s. She is America’s hired gun, or “silk”, as she would prefer. Her target is Julian Assange, who has committed no crime and has performed an historic public service by exposing the criminal actions and secrets on which governments, especially those claiming to be democracies, base their authority.

For those who may have forgotten, WikiLeaks, of which Assange is founder and publisher, exposed the secrets and lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen, the murderous role of the Pentagon in dozens of countries, the blueprint for the 20-year catastrophe in Afghanistan, the attempts by Washington to overthrow elected governments, such as Venezuela’s, the collusion between nominal political opponents (Bush and Obama) to stifle a torture investigation and the CIA’s Vault 7 campaign that turned your mobile phone, even your TV set, into a spy in your midst.

WikiLeaks released almost a million documents from Russia which allowed Russian citizens to stand up for their rights. It revealed the Australian government had colluded with the US against its own citizen, Assange. It named those Australian politicians who have “informed” for the US. It made the connection between the Clinton Foundation and the rise of jihadism in American-armed states in the Gulf.

There is more: WikiLeaks disclosed the US campaign to suppress wages in sweatshop countries like Haiti, India’s campaign of torture in Kashmir, the British government’s secret agreement to shield “US interests” in its official Iraq inquiry and the British Foreign Office’s plan to create a fake “marine protection zone” in the Indian Ocean to cheat the Chagos islanders out of their right of return.

In other words, WikiLeaks has given us real news about those who govern us and take us to war, not the preordained, repetitive spin that fills newspapers and television screens. This is real journalism; and for the crime of real journalism, Assange has spent most of the past decade in one form of incarceration or another, including Belmarsh prison, a horrific place.

Diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, he is a gentle, intellectual visionary driven by his belief that a democracy is not a democracy unless it is transparent, and accountable.

Yesterday, the United States sought the approval of Britain’s High Court to extend the terms of its appeal against a decision by a district judge, Vanessa Baraitser, in January to bar Assange’s extradition.  Baraitser accepted the deeply disturbing evidence of a number of experts that Assange would be at great risk if he were incarcerated in the US’s infamous prison system.

Professor Michael Kopelman, a world authority on neuro-psychiatry, had said Assange would find a way to take his own life — the direct result of what Professor Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, described as the craven “mobbing” of Assange by governments – and their media echoes.

Those of us who were in the Old Bailey last September to hear Kopelman’s evidence were shocked and moved. I sat with Julian’s father, John Shipton, whose head was in his hands. The court was also told about the discovery of a razor blade in Julian’s Belmarsh cell and that he had made desperate calls to the Samaritans and written notes and much else that filled us with more than sadness.

Watching the lead barrister acting for Washington, James Lewis — a man from a military background who deploys a cringingly theatrical “aha!” formula with defence witnesses — reduce these facts to “malingering” and smearing witnesses, especially Kopelman, we were heartened by Kopelman’s revealing response that Lewis’s abuse was “a bit rich” as Lewis himself had sought to hire Kopelman’s  expertise in another case.

Lewis’s sidekick is Clair Dobbin, and yesterday was her day. Completing the smearing of Professor Kopelman was down to her. An American with some authority sat behind her in court.

Dobbin said Kopelman had “misled” Judge Baraister in September because he had not disclosed that Julian Assange and Stella Moris were partners, and their two young children, Gabriel and Max, were conceived during the period Assange had taken refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The implication was that this somehow lessened Kopelman’s medical diagnosis: that Julian, locked up in solitary in Belmarsh prison and facing extradition to the US on bogus “espionage” charges, had suffered severe psychotic depression and had planned, if he had not already attempted, to take his own life.

For her part, Judge Baraitser saw no contradiction. The full nature of the relationship between Stella and Julian had been explained to her in March 2020, and Professor Kopelman had made full reference to it in his report in August 2020. So the judge and the court knew all about it before the main extradition hearing last September. In her judgement in January, Baraitser said this:

[Professor Kopelman] assessed Mr. Assange during the period May to December 2019 and was best placed to consider at first-hand his symptoms. He has taken great care to provide an informed account of Mr. Assange background and psychiatric history. He has given close attention to the prison medical notes and provided a detailed summary annexed to his December report. He is an experienced clinician and he was well aware of the possibility of exaggeration and malingering. I had no reason to doubt his clinical opinion.

She added that she had “not been misled” by the exclusion in Kopelman’s first report of the Stella-Julian relationship and that she understood that Kopelman was protecting the privacy of Stella and her two young children.

In fact, as I know well, the family’s safety was under constant threat to the point when an embassy security guard confessed he had been told to steal one of the baby’s nappies so that a CIA-contracted company could analyse its DNA. There has been a stream of unpublicised threats against Stella and her children.

For the US and its legal hirelings in London, damaging the credibility of a renowned expert by suggesting he withheld this information was a way, they no doubt reckoned, to rescue their crumbling case against Assange. In June, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin reported that a key prosecution witness against Assange has admitted fabricating his evidence. The one “hacking” charge the Americans hoped to bring against Assange if they could get their hands on him depended on this source and witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, an FBI informant.

Thordarson had worked as a volunteer for WikiLeaks in Iceland between 2010 and 2011. In 2011, as several criminal charges were brought against him, he contacted the FBI and offered to become an informant in return for immunity from all prosecution. It emerged that he was a convicted fraudster who embezzled $55,000 from WikiLeaks, and served two years in prison. In 2015, he was sentenced to three years for sex offenses against teenage boys. The Washington Post described Thordarson’s credibility as the “core” of the case against Assange.

Yesterday, Lord Chief Justice Holroyde made no mention of this witness. His concern was that it was “arguable” that Judge Baraitser had attached too much weight to the evidence of Professor Kopelman, a man revered in his field. He said it was “very unusual” for an appeal court to have to reconsider evidence from an expert accepted by a lower court, but he agreed with Ms. Dobbin it was “misleading” even though he accepted Kopelman’s “understandable human response” to protect the privacy of Stella and the children.

If you can unravel the arcane logic of this, you have a better grasp than I who have sat through this case from the beginning. It is clear Kopelman misled nobody. Judge Baraitser – whose hostility to Assange personally was a presence in her court – said that she was not misled; it was not an issue; it did not matter. So why had Lord Chief Chief Justice Holroyde spun the language with its weasel legalise and sent Julian back to his cell and its nightmares? There, he now waits for the High Court’s final decision in October – for him, a life or death decision.

And why did Holroyde send Stella from the court trembling with anguish? Why is this case “unusual”? Why did he throw the gang of prosecutor-thugs at the Department of Justice in Washington – — who got their big chance under Trump, having been rejected by Obama – a life raft as their rotting, corrupt case against a principled journalist sunk as surely as Titantic?

This does not necessarily mean that in October the full bench of the High Court will order Julian to be extradited. In the upper reaches of the masonry that is the British judiciary there are, I understand, still those who believe in real law and real justice from which the term “British justice” takes its sanctified reputation in the land of the Magna Carta. It now rests on their ermined shoulders whether that history lives on or dies.

I sat with Stella in the court’s colonnade while she drafted words to say to the crowd of media and well-wishers outside in the sunshine. Clip-clopping along came Clair Dobbin, spruced, ponytail swinging, bearing her carton of files: a figure of certainty: she who said Julian Assange was “not so ill” that he would consider suicide. How does she know?

Has Ms. Dobbin worked her way through the medieval maze at Belmarsh to sit with Julian in his yellow arm band, as Professors Koppelman and Melzer have done, and Stella has done, and I have done? Never mind. The Americans have now “promised” not to put him in a hellhole, just as they “promised” not to torture Chelsea Manning, just as they promised ……

And has she read the WikiLeaks’ leak of a Pentagon document dated 15 March, 2009? This foretold the current war on journalism. US intelligence, it said, intended to destroy WikiLeaks’ and Julian Assange’s “centre of gravity” with threats and “criminal prosecution”. Read all 32 pages and you are left in no doubt that silencing and criminalising independent journalism was the aim, smear the method.

I tried to catch Ms. Dobbin’s gaze, but she was on her way: job done.

Outside, Stella struggled to contain her emotion. This is one brave woman, as indeed her man is an exemplar of courage.

“What has not been discussed today,” said Stella, “is why I feared for my safety and the safety of our children and for Julian’s life. The constant threats and intimidation we endured for years, which has been terrorising us and has been terrorising Julian for 10 years. We have a right to live, we have a right to exist and we have a right for this nightmare to come to an end once and for all.”


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 Pilger is an Australian-British journalist and filmmaker based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: In 2017, the British Library announced a John Pilger Archive of all his written and filmed work. The British Film Institute includes his 1979 film, “Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia,” among the 10 most important documentaries of the 20th century. 

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

Three Charts the Delta Variant Scaremongers Don’t Want You to See

August 13th, 2021 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

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.


While the sharp rise in Delta-variant COVID cases has sparked a renewed push for mask mandates, lockdowns, and vaccine “passports,” there’s been little attention paid to just how dangerous this variant is. Perhaps that’s because the evidence suggests it is far less of a public health concern than previous outbreaks.

Just how much less of a threat isn’t precisely known. But there are ways to gauge the risk. One is to look at the number of COVID cases and the number of deaths happening right now, compared with what happened a year ago.

What do you find? First of all, there are fewer cases than last year. From June to August this year, there have been more than 2 million recorded COVID cases in the U.S.

Over the same days last year, the total number of COVID cases was above 3.1 million.

How about deaths? From June 1 through Aug. 9, the total number of COVID fatalities was 20,149. Last year, the death count was 62,287.

In other words, cases are 41% lower than during this time last year, and deaths are 66% lower.

Looked at another way, the “case fatality rate” was 1% from June 1 through Aug. 9 this year. It was 2% over the same days last year.

Looking at a longer time frame, the case fatality rate all this year is 1.5%. And the case fatality rate for all of last year was 1.8%.

In other words, the fatality rate from COVID appears to be steadily declining.

The lower lethality of the Delta variant makes sense.

Like any other infectious disease, COVID picked off the low-hanging fruit first – the very sick and elderly. So the case fatality rate plunged after its initial spike in early 2020 – when it was around 6%.

Doctors and hospitals also learned about better ways to treat the disease, no doubt saving lives.


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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


Dr. Anthony Fauci said the continued spread of COVID among the unvaccinated could lead to a more serious disease, but Dr. Robert Malone, Harvard-trained physician and inventor of mRNA vaccine technology told The Defender Fauci is wrong.

Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday said the continued spread of COVID among the unvaccinated could lead to a more serious disease.

Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told viewers of NBC’s “Meet the Press”:

“As we’ve said all along this is fundamentally a pandemic among the unvaccinated. That is proven true … One of the problems … is you don’t want people to get sick and to get hospitalized and to die. That is happening now predominantly — overwhelmingly — among the unvaccinated.”

Fauci told viewers the vaccines “do quite well against Delta particularly in protecting you from severe disease.” But if you “give the virus the chance to continue to change,” he said, “we might get a worse variant and then that will impact not only the unvaccinated, that will impact the vaccinated because that variant could evade the protection of the vaccine.”

Some experts disagree.

In an interview with The Defender, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccines, world-wide expert in RNA technologies and Harvard-trained physician, said there’s an agenda for universal vaccination that is not scientifically sound.

“Tony Fauci is not an epidemiologist,” Malone said. “He does not have an MPH [Masters in Public Health]. He is not trained in this. Moderna is the first vaccine that has ever come out of NIAID that has even come close to licensure.”

Malone said:

“They’ve completely failed to develop an AIDS vaccine. They failed to develop a West Nile vaccine and a Zika vaccine. Every time there’s an outbreak, Fauci goes to Congress and requests a bunch of money to create a vaccine and this is his first big win. They just seem to be dug in that universal vaccination is the only solution.”

According to Malone, Fauci has rolled out the “noble lie.” The noble lie is that we have to reach herd immunity for economic recovery and to minimize death and disability, and these genetic vaccines are the only path available to herd immunity and these genetic vaccines are perfectly safe.

Each of these statements are demonstrably false, Malone said.

The breakthrough crisis really came to a head when The Washington Post obtained and reported on a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) slide deck, Malone said.

According to the leaked CDC data, 15% of those hospitalized for COVID were fully vaccinated as of May. The number was just 3.1% in April.

Malone said the CDC data make it clear that even if we had complete uptake in vaccines and complete masking, at best we can slow the spread of Delta but we can’t stop it.

Malone, who believes death and disability still warrant vaccination in high risk populations, subscribes to Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s theory that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants.

“Geert Vanden Bossche — I am on board with that now,” Malone said, “That we really shouldn’t be doing universal vaccination because we’re just going to be generating escape mutants.”

Vanden Bossche is a virologist and vaccinologist who worked with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization in Geneva.

In March, Vanden Bossche said:

“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.”

He continued:

“A combination of lockdowns and extreme selection pressure on the virus induced by the intense global mass vaccination program might diminish the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the short-term, but ultimately, would induce the creation of more mutants of concern — known as “immune escape.”

This will trigger vaccine companies to further refine vaccines that will add to the selection pressure, producing ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.

Vaccine breakthrough cases increase across U.S.

The CDC’s latest breakthrough numbers, as of Aug. 2, show 7,525 fully vaccinated people with COVID breakthrough cases. Of those, 7,525 people, 7,101 were hospitalized and 1,507 people died.

A breakthrough case refers to anyone who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated two weeks after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine, or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.

In May, the CDC revised its guidance for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.

According to the CDC, the surveillance system for breakthrough cases is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, which may not be complete. In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness, the CDC said.

The Oregon Health Authority released COVID vaccine breakthrough data Aug. 6, recording a total of 4,196 breakthrough cases through July 31.

In July, there were 12,514 total cases of COVID in Oregon with one out of every five (19%) occurring in people who were fully vaccinated, according to the Oregon Health Authority.

About 1 in 10 severe cases of COVID requiring hospitalization or resulting in death occurred in individuals who were vaccinated. Out of 55 COVID related deaths, 9% occurred in individuals who were vaccinated.

According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, 11% of the new COVID cases in July were breakthrough cases — an increase from 5% in May and 8% in June. The state health department said the efficacy of Pfizer and Moderna is about 90%, so the numbers are not unexpected even though the percentage of cases is rising.

New data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) showed 100 people who had been fully vaccinated died of COVID in the state by the end of July. In about three-quarters of the breakthrough cases, patients reported having underlying conditions, DPH said. The median age of those who died was 82.5 years.

According to a CDC study from Aug. 6, 469 COVID cases were identified among residents of Barnstable County, Massachusetts with 436 cases (74%) occurring in people who were fully vaccinated.

The Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) released data held secret for months about which COVID vaccines produced the most breakthrough cases, WBRZ reported.

The data released Friday by LDH after a series of requests from the WBRZ Investigative Unit showed among fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infections and who had  severe health outcomes such as hospitalization or death, 41% received Moderna, 52% received Pfizer and 6% received Johnson and Johnson’s COVID vaccine.

LDH reiterated that in its statement: “The number of people who received each type of vaccine is not equal… [so many factors in the data] further cloud any conclusions one can draw from these numbers.”

Between July 22 and July 28, 10% of new cases that week were breakthrough cases. In that same period, 16% of deaths occurred in people who had been vaccinated.

Of 422 people hospitalized in Baton Rouge hospitals as of Aug. 6, 59 were fully vaccinated.

Correction: This piece has been updated to include the number of people that have been hospitalized, according to the CDC’s latest breakthrough numbers, as of Aug. 2.


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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


The U.S. CDC announced today that they have “new data” that they claim shows that the COVID-19 experimental injections are now safe for pregnant women.

Of course they have been recommending all along that pregnant women get the experimental injections, so it appears that this is just a new marketing strategy to get more pregnant women to get the shots.

The CDC admits that this “new study” of nearly 2,500 pregnant women who received an mRNA COVID-19 injection before 20 weeks of pregnancy had 13% of them suffer miscarriages. They concluded that:

the known severe risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy demonstrate that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant people outweigh any known or potential risks. (Source.)

A search of the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 1,270 premature fetal deaths in pregnant women following one of the experimental, non-FDA approved COVID-19 injections. (Source.)

As we have previously reported here at Health Impact News, a pro-life group out of New Mexico has reported that a whistleblower who sits on a COVID-19 task force is claiming that many pregnancy complications, including preterm birth, miscarriage, and spontaneous abortions following COVID vaccines are being concealed from the public. See: Whistleblower Reveals Many Pregnancy Complications following Experimental COVID Injections – “Vaccine Leaving a Trail of Devastated Mothers”

This whistleblower has uncovered documents that Pfizer had supplied to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) that shows their mRNA COVID vaccines did have animal trials that showed serious birth defects occurred in the rat specimens. See: EMA Pfizer Documents on Experimental COVID-19 mRNA Shots Reveal Animal Studies were Conducted during Trials – Risks to Pregnancy being Concealed but Verified by VAERS Data

Also, at the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) last quarterly meeting, on March 4, 2021, the CDC supplied a report on “Maternal vaccination safety summary” for the COVID vaccines that had been granted emergency use authorization.

You can view it here.

The CDC’s own report stated:

Maternal vaccination safety summary

* Pregnant women were not specifically included in pre-authorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
– Post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways to obtain safety data on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy
* Larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women have registered in v-safe
* The reactogenicity profile and adverse events observed among pregnant women in v-safe did not indicate any safety problems
* Most reports to VAERS among pregnant women (73%) involved non-pregnancy specific adverse events (e.g., local and systemic reactions)
* Miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS; numbers are within the known background rates based on presumed COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to pregnant women

So even though there were “larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women” reporting adverse reactions to the experimental vaccines, and even though “miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event,” the CDC concluded that this “did not indicate any safety problems.”

And that is what they are doing with this study, which they admit caused miscarriages in 13% of the women.

They brush all these fetal deaths aside by stating:

the known severe risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy demonstrate that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant people outweigh any known or potential risks. (Source.)

But what exactly are these “benefits” of receiving a COVID-19 “vaccine” that “outweigh the risks?” They admit they don’t stop transmission, they admit you can still get COVID-19 after being vaccinated, and they admit that people who are fully vaccinated are still dying.

Do You Trust the CDC?

As we have reported numerous times here at Health Impact News, the CDC is a corrupt organization that cannot be trusted. They are the largest purchaser and distributor of vaccines in the world, allocating over $5 BILLION in their budget (supplied by American taxpayers) each year to purchase and distribute vaccines from Big Pharma. See: Should the CDC Oversee Vaccine Safety When They Purchase Over $5 Billion of Vaccines from Big Pharma?

The CDC also owns over 56 patents on vaccines, and many of their scientists earn royalties from the sale of vaccines. (Source.)

The CDC has a long history of corruption, and over the years many of their own scientists have tried to blow the whistle on this corruption only to be silenced. See some of our previous coverage on CDC corruption:

In addition, many of the directors running the CDC go on to work for Big Pharma developing vaccines after they complete their term at the CDC. See: Former CDC Director that Approved Gardasil Vaccine and Became Head of Merck’s Vaccine Division Named “Woman of the Year”

The CDC protects the pharmaceutical industry. They get caught lying all the time. They are not your friend, they don’t care about your health, and they don’t care if your unborn baby lives or dies.


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 HIN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CDC’s Own Stats Show 1,270 Premature Fetal Deaths Following COVID Shots but Recommend Pregnant Women Get COVID Injections
  • Tags: , ,

Pressure on Unvaccinated Intensifies

August 13th, 2021 by David Heller

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.


Dramatic steps in the war against the unvaccinated continue.

Lithuania’s Cabinet yesterday voted in favor of new sweeping regulations that will further restrict the unvaccinated from participating in society.

If the resolution is approved by parliament, as is expected in coming days, everyone would be required to present an opportunity passport before participating in daily tasks such as riding public transport, attending public events (indoor and outdoor) including theatre, concerts, and festivals. Cafes, restaurants, and stores selling “non-essential” items that are larger than 1,500 sqm, would all be off-limits, even including entering health care institutions that provide “non-essential” heath services.

The Lithuanian regulations appear to be some of the strictest restrictions on those who decided not to inject the COVID vaccine. Numerous other countries including the U.K., France, Israel, and parts of the USA have recently instituted similar policies despite scientific research, the CDC, and U.K. heath officials all confirming that vaccinated people can still transmit COVID to the same degree as the unvaccinated.

These new restrictions sweeping the globe are in response to the recent increase in COVID cases, particularly in highly vaccinated countries. Israel, the test lab for mass vaccination, has reached over 3,000 new COVID cases a day, similar to where it was back in February, and is currently ranked 11th in new cases per million, now back on the CDC’s list of “highest risk” countries.

In response, the Israeli government just tightened its “Green Pass” restrictions, is discussing a fourth national lockdown by September, started revaccinating the 60+ age group, and announced that the police’s number one priority is to enforce the indoor mask mandate, dedicating over 1,200 officers to the effort, and using police surveillance drones. This, despite science research and empirical data that has shown masks to be ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID.


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

Lawsuit Challenges “Bioengineered” GMO Food Labeling

August 13th, 2021 by Center for Food Safety

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


This article was first published in 2020.

A coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s rules for labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms.

Today, Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Trump Administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging USDA’s rules on labeling genetically engineered (GE) or GMO foods, which USDA now calls “bioengineered foods.” The final regulations, issued in 2019, include provisions which will leave the majority of GMO-derived foods unlabeled; discriminate against tens of millions of Americans; prohibit the use of the widely known terms “GMO” and “GE”; and prohibit retailers from providing more information to consumers. CFS is representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers, including the Natural Grocers, operating 157 stores in 20 states, and Puget Consumers Co-op, the nation’s largest community-owned food market.

“This case is about ensuring meaningful food labeling, the public’s right to know how their food is produced, and retailers’ rights to provide it to them,” said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director and counsel in the case. “The American public successfully won GE food labeling after more than a two-decade fight, but the Trump rules fall far short of what consumers reasonably expect and the law requires.”

CFS’s lawsuit makes a number of arguments. First, the case challenges USDA’s unprecedented allowance of electronic or digital disclosure on packaging, also known as “QR code” or “smartphone” labeling, without requiring additional on-package labeling. USDA allowed this despite Congress requiring the agency to first study whether digital disclosure would provide meaningful information to consumers. In 2018, CFS successfully sued USDA to release the study, and it showed conclusively that QR codes would fail. But in this final rule USDA went ahead with it anyway.

“Requiring a smartphone discriminates against at least 20 percent of the American adult population—primarily poor, elderly, rural, and minority populations—who have lower percentages of smartphone ownership, or live in areas in which grocery stores do not have internet bandwidth,” said Caroline Gordon of Rural Vermont, a plaintiff in the case.

Especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans are visiting grocery stores less frequently to avoid exposure to the virus and purchasing more items during each visit. Requiring a shopper to scan every single item they purchase would not only place an undue burden on the shopper, but would increase a shopper’s exposure risk to a deadly virus.

Second, CFS is challenging USDA’s labeling language restrictions. When on-package text is used, the rules limit it to only “bioengineered,” despite the law allowing use of similar terms. But for 25 years, every aspect of the issue—science, policy, and marketplace—has used genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GMO).

“Retailers and shoppers have relied on the term GMO for more than a decade to identify and avoid GMO foods,” said Mark Squire, co-founder of Good Earth Natural Foods, a plaintiff. “Banning the use of this term and replacing it with a term nobody has ever heard of is misleading and will create massive confusion in the marketplace.”

“At Natural Grocers, we believe in meaningful transparency. This means providing our shoppers with the information they deserve and demand about foods produced with genetic engineering,” said Alan Lewis, Vice President Advocacy & Governmental Affairs of Natural Grocers, a plaintiff. “Our rights and those of our customers are damaged by the USDA’s unlawful bioengineered labeling rule.”

Third, the case challenges USDA’s severe restriction on which foods are covered and require disclosure. The vast majority of GE foods (by some estimates over 70%) are not whole foods, but highly processed foods with GE ingredients, like sodas and oils. Yet in the final rule USDA excluded these “highly refined” products, unless the GE material was “detectable.”

“A disclosure law that exempts 70% of the foods it is supposed to disclose is not a meaningful disclosure law: it is a fraud and allows producers to keep their GMO ingredients secret,” said Tara Cook Littman of Citizens for GMO Labeling, a plaintiff.

Fourth, the exclusive rules restrict retailers and producers from voluntarily providing more meaningful information to consumers, such as using the terms GE and GMO. The only voluntary labeling allowed is “derived from bioengineering” and only in certain circumstances. The federal law preempted state disclosure laws that used the normal GE/GMO terms and properly required the labeling of all GE foods, so voluntary additional disclosure under the federal rules is imperative.

“PCC believes that our members and shoppers have a right to transparency about the food they eat, and that retailers and manufacturers have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to provide truthful information to customers. The USDA rules unlawfully restrict that protected speech and do not provide the transparency on GMO foods that consumers deserve,” said Aimee Simpson, Director of Advocacy & Product Sustainability for PCC Community Markets, a plaintiff.

The lawsuit seeks to have the court declare the regulations unlawful and nullify them, and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the rules.

The 2019 rules implement a 2016 federal law that for the first time required the labelling of GE foods. Congress passed the federal law after several states (Vermont, Connecticut, Maine) passed GE labeling laws, with numerous other states poised to do the same. The labeling is required to be implemented by food manufacturers in January 2022.


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 Center for Food Safety

Note: All Global Research articles are now accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.


First published on August 26, 2020.






Author’s Note

I wrote this article a year ago.

And now we have entered a new phase. The “Vaccine Passport” is being imposed in a large number of countries.

And those who refuse to get the “vaccine” are categorized as “anti-social psychopaths”.

So-called peer reviewed “reports” are now categorizing those who refuse the face mask, social distancing, confinement and the vaccine of having “anti-social personality disorders”.

The above text was subsequently published in my E-Book  (Chapter IX) entitled:

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


Michel Chossudovsky, August 13, 2021


A diabolical process is underway which consists in “identifying” all those who are opposed to the governments’ management of the coronavirus pandemic. According to ongoing psychological studies, these opponents are categorized as anti-social psychopaths.  

The unspoken objective is to shunt the emergence of an organized protest movement pertaining to social engineering and the decision taken Worldwide at a political level to close down  the national economies of more than 150 members states of the United Nations. 

Peer reviewed psychological “studies” are currently being carried in several countries using sample surveys.

 Accept the “big Lie” and you are tagged as a “good person” with “empathy” who understands the feelings of others.

Protest against the official truth (“big lie”), criticize government guidelines, express reservations regarding the closing down of the global economy, social distancing and the wearing of the face mask, and you will  be tagged (according to “scientific opinion”) as a “callous and deceitful psychopath”.

Psychology: Empirical Studies

A so-called peer reviewed “empirical report” describes those who refuse to wear the face mask or abide by social distancing as having “anti-social personality disorders”.

Those  who “do not adhere  to measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19” are tagged as “anti-social”.  

The findings of the Brazilian study involving a “sample” of 1578 adults was published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. under the title:

COVID-19 pandemic over time: Do antisocial traits matter? 

“Empathy” versus “Anti-social Traits”

The statistical “methodology” of this study is straightforward. It is intended to serve as a model.

It consists in categorizing a so-called sample of adults from all major regions of Brazil into two distinct groups. It examines:

“..the relationships between antisocial traits and compliance with COVID-19 containment measures. The sample consisted of 1578 Brazilian adults aged 18–73 years … and a questionnaire about compliance with containment measures.

Latent profile analyses indicated a 2-profile solution: the antisocial pattern profile which presented higher scores in Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, and Risk-taking, as well as lower scores in Affective resonance;

and the empathy pattern profile which presented higher scores in Affective resonance …

The antisocial and empathy groups showed significant differences. … Our findings indicated that antisocial traits, especially lower levels of empathy and higher levels of Callousness, Deceitfulness, and Risk-taking, are directly associated with lower compliance with containment measures. These traits explain, at least partially, the reason why people continue not adhering to the containment measures even with increasing numbers of cases and deaths. (emphasis added)

The research methodology is built around 3 main questions:

 “Do you think it is necessary to avoid approaching people as much as possible until the coronavirus situation is controlled?” (social distancing),

“Do you think it is necessary to wash your hands and/or use alcohol gel as many times a day until the coronavirus situation is controlled?” (hygiene),

“Do you think it is necessary to use facemask (that protects nose and mouth) in Brazil?” (facemask).

Yes/No Categorization

  • Answer Yes to these Three Questions: you are categorized as having “Empathy” (i.e. the ability to understand and share the feelings of others).
  • Answer No to all Three Questions: you are categorized (according to the study) as having “higher levels of Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, and Risk-taking” (as quoted above).
It all sounds very scientific. The unspoken objective of these psycho-studies is to provide governments with a mandate to intimidate as well as to enforce compliance, while smearing the alleged psychopaths who refuse to conform to the official narrative, which is an outright lie.  
“The Dark Triad” and “Collective Narcissism” 
According to Eric W. Dolan  (PsyPost) the above study consisted in identifying “a measure of maladaptive personality traits… “.   Dolan also refers to a related study focussing on: “the “Dark Triad” of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism associated with ignoring preventative COVID-19 measures.”. The study conducted in Poland is entitled:

Adaptive and maladaptive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of Dark Triad traits, collective narcissism, and health beliefs

The study refers to the practice of “collective narcissism”, namely a common belief and practice by a so-called ‘In-Group” (aka protest movement, collective of dissident medical doctors, scientists) directed against the official corona virus “truth” (aka the Big Lie). Collective narcissism is embedded in what psychologists call the Dark Triad.

The study is based on “a nationally representative sample from Poland (N = 755)”. It examines:

“the relationships between the Dark Triad traits (i.e., psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) and collective narcissism (i.e., agentic and communal) … Participants characterized by the Dark Triad traits engaged less in prevention …  The results point to the utility of health beliefs in predicting behaviors during the pandemic, explaining (at least in part) problematic behaviors associated with the dark personalities (i.e., Dark Triad, collective narcissism). …

 The traits, such as the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and collective narcissism … may have implications for how one copes with the virus…  For example, individuals characterized by the Dark Triad traits may be less likely to follow governmentally-enforced restrictions related to COVID-19

The Term “Agentic” quoted above refers to “goal-achievement”.

And here is the Methodology

We measured the Dark Triad traits (Wave 2) … [also with reference to] the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010). The scale consists of four items assessing individual differences in psychopathy (e.g., “I tend to lack remorse”), narcissism (e.g., “I tend to seek prestige or status”), and Machiavellianism (e.g., “I tend to manipulate others to get my way”). Participants indicated their agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). We averaged responses to create indices of each trait.

Sounds scientific. What are the conclusions?

We advanced the scope of the model by illustrating the relevance of dark personality traits in predicting both adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in response to the pandemic by person-focused (i.e., the Dark Triad traits) and group-focused (i.e., collective narcissism) personality traits.” The read the full report click here emphasis added)

The psychological definition of Dark Triad Traits comprises the combined personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. “They are called “dark” because of their malevolent qualities.”

The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) consists of a broader “personality inventory” which assesses and measures the three personality components of the Dark Triad. (see image right)

In substance, what this “scientific report” confirms is that people who question the covid-19 official narrative have “malevolent personality disorders”. They are said to suffer from the Dirty Dozen “Dark Triad Traits” (DTDD). 

When they act contiguously within a In-Group or a Protest movement (E.g. The August Mass Rally in Berlin), they are tagged as applying “collective narcissism”.

The framework of the above study is also envisaged for other countries in partnership (with the Warsaw group). Another related study is entitled: “Who complies with the restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19?: Personality and perceptions of the COVID-19 situation”

Strong words. “Peer Reviewed”?

Psychology is being used in a pernicious way to provide legitimacy to a Police State with a mandate to “go after” those who allegedly have Dark Triad “malevolent personality disorders”.

It’s an inquisitorial doctrine, which could eventually evolve towards a digital witch hunt, far more sophisticated than the “Spanish Inquisition”.

“In contrast to the Spanish Inquisition, the contemporary inquisitorial system has almost unlimited capabilities of spying on and categorizing individuals.

People are tagged and labeled, their emails, telephones and faxes are monitored, detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, people are locked into watertight compartments. Their profiles are established and entered into a computerized system.

Law enforcement is systematic. The witch hunt is not only directed against presumed “terrorists” through ethnic profiling, etc., the various human rights, affirmative action, antiwar cohorts are themselves the object of the anti-terrorist legislation and so on.

Needless to say, converting or recanting by antiwar heretics is not permitted.

Meanwhile war criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting rulers, “committed to their safety and well-being”, “who are going after the bad guys.” (Michel Chossudovsky, The Spanish Inquisition, “Made in America”, Global Research, December 2004)

Francisco Goya: The Spanish Inquisition (1812-1819) Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, Madrid

“Economic Genocide” 

We are living one of the most serious crises in modern history. People’s lives are being destroyed.

These empirical psychology studies are meant to be used against citizens who are opposed to the instructions of their respective governments. In turn these governments obey orders from higher up.

While ordinary citizens are tagged, what is increasingly obvious  is that the billionaires, “philanthropists”, corrupt politicians, et al., who are the unspoken architects of the global economic lockdown are psychopaths in their own right.

While their personality traits are not the motive of scientific investigation, the corrupt billionaires who are behind the corona lockdown and closure of the global economy are mentally deranged. Money and enrichment is the driving force.

However, tagging politicians and financiers as “psychopaths” is in an understatement.  What is a stake is an outright crime against humanity. Calling for the simultaneous closing down of the national economies of 193 member states of the UN is an act of economic genocide.

Economic and social decision-making is criminalized. The legitimacy of  Wall Street, the World Economic Forum (WEF), Big Pharma and the billionaire foundations which ordered the closure of the global economy on March 11, 2020 must be forcefully addressed.

Social distancing has devastating consequences.

At this juncture it is being used to justify the closure of schools, colleges and universities, which deliberately derogate the right to education.

Wearing the face mask is detrimental to a person’s health. It’s known and documented. Enforcing the wearing of the face mask using fake science as a justification is an illegal and criminal act. 
Dr. Fauci confirmed it two months ago. He is lying to himself when ordering that the wearing of the mask be applied “universally”. 
Now he says exactly the opposite. 
The future of humanity is at stake. Millions of people have been impoverished as a result of the closure of the real economy. 
Spread the word.
* * *

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.


  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on “Collective Narcissism” and the “Dark Triad”: Those Who Protest against the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative are Categorized as “Psychopaths”. Is It A Witch Hunt?

Cuba, China, Latin America and the World

August 12th, 2021 by John Ross

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 US in Latin America is at present once again seeing a series of countries attempting to follow independent policies, corresponding to their national interests, and some with a socialist orientation, rather than subordinating themselves to the US. These countries typically reject the current US cold war against China and indeed seek win-win relations with China. The US is responding to this trend by tightening its blockade of Cuba in an attempt to strangle that country in the hope of provoking a “colour counter-revolution”. This anti-Cuba US blockade is being carrying out in open defiance of an overwhelming majority of world opinion, as shown in the recent vote in the UN General Assembly of 184-2 against the US economic sanctions against Cuba.

If the US succeeds in this open defiance of world opinion on Cuba it will be emboldened to strengthen its attack on every other country it choses. The implications of this intensified US attempt to strangle Cuba go far beyond that country. As will be seen it affects the entire Latin American continent – and through that will have a significant effect on the world geopolitical situation. This article therefore examines this US offensive, the attempt to create a colour counter-revolution  – and why Cuba is key to the situation in Latin America.

The new situation in Latin America

From the standpoint of US attempts to subordinate Latin America countries to its interests’ recent events in that continent are significantly disturbing.

  • A pro-US coup d’etat in Bolivia in 2019, to remove President Evo Morales, was defeated when in October 2020 Luis Arce, candidate of the Movement Towards Socialism, won a crushing victory in the presidential election. Bolivia’s new government has declared it will return to cooperation with China, particularly in such strategic fields as lithium production, and former President Morales spoke at the recent Summit of the CPC and World Political Parties during the session at which Xi Jinping was the first speaker.
  • Argentina is clearly seeking friendly relations with China – as shown by its president Alberto Fernández also speaking at the recent Summit of the CPC and World Political Parties, again in the session at which the opening speech was given by Xi Jinping.
  • In the recent presidential election in Peru the candidate opposed by the US, Pedro Castillo, was elected – defeating the attempt by US backed forces to overturn the majority of the popular vote which was won by Castillo.
  • Cuba’s president Miguel Díaz-Canel was another speaker in the session with Xi Jinping at the recent summit of the CPC and World Political Parties.
  • Opinion polls in Brazil show former President Lula with a crushing 26% lead, 49% to 23%, against the present pro-US President Bolsonaro in voting intentions for the 2022 Presidential election. Both former President Lula and former President Rousseff have recently made clear they would end Brazil’s support for the US cold war against China and seek active re-engagement in BRICS.

In summary, public opinion in Latin America is shifting against the US, in favour of national independence, and the policy by a number of governments is also moving against the cold war with China. This has implications which go even beyond Latin America, to affect the geopolitical situation, through trade and investment, and due to the votes of these countries in the United Nations and other international bodies.

The sanctions against Cuba

Faced with this increased trend of Latin America countries pursuing more independent policies, and refusing to join the cold war against China, the US has recently responded in a number of ways which indicate its concern – such as sending the head of the CIA to Brazil to discuss with that country’s government with the obvious intention of trying to ensure that Lula does not win the forthcoming election. But a central part of the US attempt to ensure Latin American countries remain subordinated to it has been to intensify its sanctions against Cuba.

The Trump administration already tightened the sixty year-old US economic blockade of Cuba blockade by imposing 243 extra sanctions – all of which were retained in place by Biden. These intensified food, medical and fuel shortages in Cuba even before the Covid pandemic struck. Banks are increasingly refusing to transfer funds to Cuba for fear of US fines, and it is now almost impossible for Cubans living abroad to transfer money to their families on the island.

COVID-19 was a particularly serious blow to Cuba’s economy because one of Cuba’s chief sources of foreign currency was from international tourism – which was down 94 per cent in the first four months of 2021 due to the pandemic.

The US then responded to this situation by deliberately targeting cutting off medical supplies to Cuba – preventing delivery of COVID-19 medical requirements such as ventilators, personal protection supplies, and testing equipment. Despite having five home-grown vaccines, Cuba’s vaccination roll-out programme is hindered by a lack of syringes and raw materials as a direct result of the blockade.

As the well-known US magazine The Nation noted: “Imagine a country developing and producing its own Covid-19 vaccines, enough to cover its entire population, but being unable to inoculate everyone because of a syringe shortage. This absurd situation is real… Cuba has already vaccinated about 2 million of its 11 million people, and hopes to have 70 percent of the population vaccinated by August. Yet, because of the 60-year US embargo, which punishes civilians during a pandemic, the country is facing a shortage of millions of syringes.

“It makes little sense that a country so advanced in biotech and pharmaceuticals should have trouble sourcing syringes. This reality is a consequence of what amounts to US economic warfare, which makes it extremely difficult for Cuba to acquire medicine, equipment, and supplies from vendors or transportation companies that do business in or with the United States. Syringes are in short supply internationally, so no company wants to be bogged down navigating the complicated banking and licensing demands the US government places on transactions with Cuba…

“Cuba’s achievements in health are a model and a demonstrable benefit for the entire world—one that the United States should be supporting. This is a country that is developing its economy through health and education—a project that began 60 years ago with rural literacy and health campaigns. Cuba’s public health system has allowed it to outperform much of the world in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and, most recently, per capita pandemic statistics.

“On the first day of the new administration, President Biden issued a national security directive calling for a review of the impact of sanctions on the response to the pandemic, with an eye toward offering relief. Hope for a sensible US policy toward Cuba was once again kindled. Now, almost half a year into the Biden administration, the Trump-era policies of “maximum pressure” remain in place. The White House has made it clear that improving Cuba-US relations—and with them, the daily lives of the Cuban people—is not a priority.”

Indeed, Cuba’s achievements in health are astonishing. Life expectancy in Cuba, a developing country, at 78.80 years is actually slightly higher than in the US. The US by attacking Cuba’s medical supplies, faced with a pandemic, is literally aiming to kill Cuban people. This illustrates clearly the falsity of the US claim to stand for “human rights”.

This present US policy is entirely deliberate and follows from the original US State Department memorandum on the blockade in 1960 which stated: “The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship… every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba… a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

This is, of course, in line with the US formula for “colour revolutions” and “hybrid warfare” which has been carried out against numerous countries – and which is currently being employed against China in Hong Kong and in attempts to economically destabilise Xinjiang through sanctions.

“Hybrid war” and “colour revolutions”

Another side of this hybrid war, the attempt to create a colour revolution, is the spending by the US of hundreds of millions of dollars a year on so-called “democracy promotion” on Cuba, via organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy – which funds groups and individuals who work undercover attempting to build US-supported opposition. Once again China is familiar with such methods from events in Hong Kong.

While the overwhelming majority of the Cuban people have not gone along with these attempts at hybrid war there are of course, as there were in Hong Kong, certain minority politically backward groups, and those who has simply been bought by the US, who have attempted to stage protests. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel for example referred to: “In a very cowardly, subtle and opportunistic and perverse way, from the most complicated situations that we have had in provinces such as Matanzas and Ciego de Ávila, those who have always approved the blockade and who serve as mercenaries of the Yankee blockade on the streets, begin to appear with doctrines of humanitarian aid and a ‘humanitarian corridor.’ We all know where they come from.”

The US intensification of sanctions, together with the strain on the medical system created by COVID19, is leading to fuel shortages and power cuts, which in the height of summer means that air conditioning and fridges don’t work. The shortages create queues for medicines and basic goods which led to protests which were then exploited by pro-US elements. This, again, is the same pattern as in Hong Kong – where protests about legitimate issues, such as the high price of housing, were exploited by separatists who as usual falsely presented themselves under the banner of “democracy” and “human rights”.

Similarly, as also with Hong Kong, the US verbally declares its support for the “Cuban people” – as it does with the Chinese people. But in reality, by cutting off medical supplies and other goods the US is trying to impose hardship on the Cuban people. If those in the US administration proclaiming their support for “humanitarian aid” to Cuba were genuine in their intentions they would start with calling for the US blockade to be lifted to allow medical and other supplies to be sent to Cuba. However, of course the true objectives of the blockade are precisely to inflict suffering on the Cuban people.

But why is the US attempting to use so much pressure to try to damage Cuba? After all Cuba is a small country with a population of only 11 million – significantly smaller than the state of New York! To understand the reasons, it is necessary to consider the historical relation of the US and Latin America and the key role played by Cuba in this.

Latin America and the US

One of the very earliest and most fundamental steps in US policy to expand its international power came following the successful wars of national liberation by all Spain’s former colonies in Latin American, except for Cuba and Puerto Rico, during the first quarter of the 19th century. The US directly intervened into this process of the attempt of Latin America to achieve national independence by declaring the “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823. Formally this declared that any intervention in the politics