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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There’s a reason CNN’s Jake Tapper is intent on branding me a “menace” and “a liar,” and why he refuses to debate me on the merits of facts and scientific evidence. Here’s the back story.

Apparently, appalled by robust sales of my bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper — in lieu of critically reviewing the work — used his Twitter feed to unleash a barrage of ad hominem insults against me.

Breaking with the traditional restraints of journalistic neutrality, professional propriety and intellectual rigor, he branded me “dangerous,” a “menace,” a “liar,” a “grifter,” a fraud, “unhinged” and more.

But Tapper’s defamations hang in the atmosphere without substantiation or citation. If I’m a liar, then what was my lie? If I’m a grifter, then what is my personal profit or advantage? If I am a fraud, then where is my inaccurate statement?

I concede that I’m a dangerous menace, but only to the pharmaceutical industry, its captive technocrats and its media toadies.

When I responded to his slander with a respectful tweet inviting him to debate me, Tapper declined, explaining he would not debate a “conspiracy theorist.” Characteristically, he neglected to cite any conspiracy theory he believes I promoted.

And is it credible to dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist unworthy of debate? After all, I am founder and former president of the world’s largest water protection group, and founder and current chairman of one of the largest children’s health advocacy groups.

I’ve won hundreds of successful lawsuits, including milestone victories against Monsanto, DuPont, Exxon, Smithfield Foods and leading polluters from the chemical, carbon, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. (Many of these also initially dismissed me as a “conspiracy theorist.”)

My current book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” may be the most heavily footnoted volume to ever sit atop global best-seller lists for six consecutive weeks. With 500,000 copies sold, it has attracted a whopping 5,500+ five-star reviews (92%).

Despite extreme hostility toward this volume from mainstream media and the medical cartel, no one has yet identified a factual inaccuracy in its 250,000 words.

If my book is baseless conspiracy theories, then shouldn’t Mr. Tapper welcome an opportunity to correct me with facts or arguments that go beyond name-calling?

Allow me, then, to offer my own theory for Mr. Tapper’s apoplexy.

Many people make Faustian bargains during their lives, trading personal integrity for material advantage. Oftentimes the metamorphosis occurs as a gradual erosion of moral fiber. Occasionally it happens in an instant; a man stands at a moral crossroads and chooses the dark side.

I happened to have a front-row seat when Jake Tapper had his moment of moral crisis. I’m guessing his fierce vitriol toward me is a reaction to his embarrassment that I was witness to the instant when Mr. Tapper chose career over character.

In July 2005, Jake Tapper was ABC’s senior producer when the network ordered him to pull a lengthy exposé on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) secret 2000 Simpsonwood conference.

Here is the background:

In 1999, in response to exploding epidemics of autism and other neurological disorders, CDC decided to study its vast Vaccine Safety Datalink — the medical and vaccination record of millions of Americans, archived by the top HMOs — to learn whether the dramatic escalation of the vaccine schedule, beginning in 1989, was a culprit. CDC’s in-house epidemiologist, Thomas Verstraeten, led the effort.

Verstraeten’s initial data run suggested that mercury-containing hepatitis B vaccines — administered during the first month of life — were associated with a wide range of neurological injuries, including a dramatic 1,135% rise in autism risks among vaccinated children.

Verstraeten’s findings propelled CDC into DEFCON 1. The agency’s top vaccine officials summoned 52 pharmaceutical industry leaders, the foremost vaccinologists from academia and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and public health regulators from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CDC, World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency to a secret two-day meeting at the remote Simpsonwood retreat center in Norcross, Georgia, to strategize about how to hide these awful revelations from the public.

In 2005, I obtained the explosive transcripts of this meeting and was about to publish excerpts in Rolling Stone (Deadly Immunity, July 18, 2005). Those recordings, ironically, portrayed these leading kingpins of the vaccine cartel poised at their own moral brink, and chronicled their collapse into corruption over two sickening days of debate.

Most of these individuals were physicians and regulatory officials who had committed their lives to public health out of idealism and deep concern for children. Verstraeten’s data confronted them with the fact that the cumulative mercury levels in all those new vaccines they had recommended had overdosed a generation of American children with mercury concentrations over a hundred times the exposures the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered safe.

In recommending a vast battery of new vaccines for children, public health regulators had somehow neglected to calculate the cumulative mercury and aluminum loads in all the new jabs.

Dr. Peter Patriarca, the then-director of the FDA Office on Vaccine Research and Review, expressed the general feeling of horror when he asked why no one had calculated the cumulative mercury exposure to children as policymakers added this cascade of new vaccines to the childhood schedule: “Conversion of the percentage thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth-grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?”

In the tense days leading up to the Simpsonwood conclave, children’s health champion Dr. Ruth Etzel of the EPA pleaded with her fellow public health leaders to publicly admit they made a terrible mistake by inadvertently poisoning American children, and to repair the damage.

Dr. Etzel urged AAP and the government regulators to handle the crisis with the same honesty and public remorse that Johnson & Johnson had demonstrated on discovering toxic chemicals in its Tylenol formulations:

“We must follow three basic rules: (1) act quickly to inform pediatricians that the products have more mercury than we realized; (2) be open with consumers about why we didn’t catch this earlier; (3) show contrition. If the public loses faith in the Public Health Services recommendations, then the immunization battle will falter. To keep faith, we must be open and honest and move forward quickly to replace these products.”

Confronted with scientific proof of their role in the chronic disease calamity, the cabal did exactly the opposite. The shocking Simpsonwood transcripts show Dr. Patriarca and the other public health panjandrums warning each other of their reputational liabilities, their vulnerability to litigation by plaintiffs’ lawyers and potential damage to the vaccine program.

Dr. Patriarca cautioned that public disclosure of CDC’s explosive findings would make Americans feel that the FDA, CDC and vaccine policymakers had been “asleep at the switch” for decades in allowing Thimerosal to remain in childhood vaccines.

Over two days of intense discussion, these Big Pharma operatives and government technocrats persuaded each other to transform their disastrous error into villainy — by doubling down and hiding their mistake from the public.

Tapper saw an early draft of my Rolling Stone story and proposed that, in exchange for exclusivity, he would do a companion piece for ABC timed to air on the magazine’s publication day.

Tapper spent several weeks working on the story with me and a team of enthusiastic ABC reporters and technicians. During his frequent conversations with me over that period, he was on fire with indignation over the Simpsonwood revelations. He acted like a journalist hoping to win an Emmy.

The day before the piece was to air, an exasperated Tapper called me to say that ABC’s corporate officials ordered him to pull the story. The network’s pharmaceutical advertisers were threatening to cancel their advertising.

“Corporate told us to shut it down,” Tapper fumed. Tapper told me that it was the first time in his career that ABC officials had ordered him to kill a story.

ABC had advertised the Simpsonwood exposé, and its sudden cancellation disappointed an army of vaccine safety advocates and parents of injured children who deluged the network with a maelstrom of angry emails.

In response, ABC changed tack and publicly promised to air the piece. Instead, following a one-week delay, the network duplicitously aired a hastily assembled puff piece promoting vaccines and assuring listeners that mercury-laden vaccines were safe.

The new “bait and switch” segment precisely followed Pharma’s talking points. “I’m putting my faith in the Institute of Medicine,” ABC’s obsequious medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, declared in closing. Two pharmaceutical advertisements bracketed the story.

After that piece aired, I called Jake to complain. He neither answered nor returned my calls.

During the 16 intervening years, Pharma has returned Mr. Tapper’s favor by aggressively promoting his career. Pfizer shamelessly sponsors Tapper’s CNN news show, announcing its ownership of the space — and Mr. Tapper’s indentured servitude — before each episode with the loaded phrase: “Brought to you by Pfizer.”

Under the apparent terms of that sponsorship, CNN and Tapper provide Pfizer a platform to market its products and allow the drug company — a serial felon — to dictate content on CNN.

This arrangement has transformed CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper into a propaganda vehicle for Pharma and effectively reduced Mr. Tapper to the role of a drug rep — shamelessly promoting fear porn, confusion, and germophobia, and ushering his audience toward high-yield patent pharmaceuticals.

Tapper’s main thrust during the pandemic has been to promote levels of public terror sufficient to indemnify all the official lies against critical thinking.

All that Pharma money naturally requires that Mr. Tapper kowtow to Dr. Fauci, and the CNN host’s slavishness has helped make Tapper’s show the go-to pulpit for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director.

It’s a safe place for Dr. Fauci to hit all Jake’s reliable softballs out of the park.

“The bootlicking competition at CNN is pretty nauseating,” observed investigative journalist Celia Farber who has chronicled Dr. Fauci’s mismanagement at NIAID for more than 25 years. “It’s ruinous for both democracy and for public health.”

Another journalist has compared Tapper’s mortifying on-air servility toward Dr. Fauci to the adulation of a loyal and obedient canine. “It’s like a dog watching a chess match,” says former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. “So much intensity and so little understanding.”

Tapper has gone two years without asking Dr. Fauci a single tough question. He has covered up Fauci’s involvement with Wuhan, suppressed news of vaccine injuries, gaslighted the injured, and defended every official orthodoxy on masks, lockdowns, social distancing, vaccines, remdesivir, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

He has never asked about the public health, mental health, and economic costs of lockdown, about the disproportionate burdens of Dr. Fauci’s policies on minorities, the working class and the global poor.

He has never asked Dr. Fauci to explain why countries and states that refused Dr. Fauci’s prescription have consistently experienced dramatically better health outcomes. For example, why are U.S. death rates 1,000x the death rates of African countries like Nigeria and Indian statesthat widely use hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? Mr. Tapper simply never allows contrary views on his show.

He continues to extol COVID vaccines as a miracle technology that individuals can take four times and still both get and spread the illness.

“He never calls Dr. Fauci on his vacillating science-free pronouncements,” said Farber. “Dr. Fauci seems to be able to paralyze the curiosity features of Tapper’s brain.”

Tapper has to ask Dr. Fauci why, under his direction, America suffered the world’s highest body count. With 4.2% of the global population, our nation suffered 15% of COVID deaths.

Instead, he functions as high priest of every official orthodoxy, working to deify Dr. Fauci and anoint all his absurd, vacillating and contradictory pronouncements with papal infallibility. The sure way to earn Tapper’s indignation is to criticize Dr. Fauci.

Here are just a few examples of Mr. Tapper’s brazen deceptions:

On Feb. 2, 2021, Tapper “debunked” claims that baseball great Hank Aaron may have died from a COVID shot. The home run king submitted to a CDC-staged press conference 17 days earlier. Tapper assured his audience that the Fulton County coroner had determined Aaron to have died from “natural causes.”

When the Fulton County coroner subsequently denied ever having seen Aaron’s body, much less performed an autopsy, Tapper refused to correct his story.

In August 2021, Tapper gave Dr. Fauci a platform to spread the rumor that deluded Americans were poisoning themselves with a “horse medicine” called ivermectin.

In an Aug. 29, 2021 interview, Dr. Fauci told Tapper, “There’s no evidence whatsoever that that works, and it could potentially have toxicity… with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick. There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”

Tapper never corrected Dr. Fauci. He never pointed out that there were by then 70 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating ivermectin’s miraculous efficacy against COVID.

He didn’t dispute Dr. Fauci’s characterization of ivermectin as a horse medicine by noting that the drug had won both a Nobel Prize and WHO’s listing as an “essential medicine” for its miraculous efficacy against human illnesses, and that people have consumed billions of doses with no significant safety signals.

Mr. Tapper never thought to ask Dr. Fauci if he was trying to discourage use of a cheap, effective drug that might compete with his experimental vaccines.

Instead, Tapper abjectly parroted Dr. Fauci’s talking points: “Poison control centers are reporting that their calls are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called ivermectin to treat coronavirus, to prevent contracting coronavirus.”

It mattered not to Tapper that both Mississippi and Oklahoma officials quickly denied that anyone in their state had been hospitalized for ivermectin poisoning. Tapper never corrected his false story.

On Sept. 14, 2021, Tapper obligingly gave Dr. Fauci a platform to dispute rapper Nicki Minaj’s worry that COVID vaccines may affect fertility. Dr. Fauci simply declared, “The answer to that, Jake, is a resounding no.”

As usual, Tapper did not ask Dr. Fauci to cite a study to support this assertion. He never pointed out to Dr. Fauci that all of the COVID vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that their products are not tested for effects on fertility, or that recent data has shown dramatic upticks in miscarriagesand pre-eclampsia in vaccinated women.

Nevertheless, based upon Dr. Fauci’s word alone, CNN rushed on to defame and discredit the rapper and to assure the public that Minaj was wrong. Dr. Fauci, after all, had spoken!

It’s easy to see how two years of such obsequious deference emboldened Dr. Fauci in November 2021 to declare that “I represent science.”

There are too many other examples of Tapper’s uncritical promotion of government and pharma falsehoods to even summarize. These are not harmless lies. Each of them has potentially disastrous consequences for public health.

The term “psychological projection” describes the uncanny precision with which a certain sort of person applies the very pejoratives to others that most accurately depict their own shortcomings.

When Mr. Tapper calls me “unhinged,” a “menace to public health,” a “fraud,” a “liar,” is he falling victim to projection?

The critical functions of journalism in a democracy are to speak truth to power, relentlessly expose official corruption, and to forever maintain a posture of skepticism toward government and corporate power centers.

What Jake Tapper does is the opposite of journalism. Tapper, instead, aligns himself with power, and makes himself a propagandist for official narratives and a servile publicist for powerful elites and government technocrats.

No wonder his fury at those who challenge their narratives.

*

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.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.

Featured image: “Jake Tapper-Caricature” by DonkeyHotey — licensed under CC BY 2.0

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

COVID hospitalizations and deaths throughout this pandemic have been inaccurately reported. This has been made clear by government health officials throughout the pandemic in multiple regions across the planet. One of them is in Ontario, Canada.

Dr. Kieran Moore, Ontario’s chief medical officer, reaffirmed this once again in a press conference held at the end of December. She stated that Ontario’s daily reported COVID hospitalization numbers haven’t been telling the fully story.

She confirmed that approximately 50% of COVID hospitalizations represent people who aren’t actually there suffering from COVID, but have gone to the hospital with something else, like a broken leg, and just happened to test positive. The Toronto Sun was one of the few media outlets to emphasize this.

Brampton (an outskirt of the Greater Toronto Area) Mayor Patrick Brown Echoed Moore’s statements. On Dec 29, 2021 CTV News Toronto reported that he has heard from a number of physicians that COVID hospitalization numbers may not necessarily paint an accurate picture of the current situation in the province.

He said that approximately 50 per cent of people in hospitals diagnosed with COVID were admitted for another reason.

“They came to the hospital for another procedure and found inadvertently that they had COVID, so no symptoms. So someone might be coming in for a surgery and because we’re testing all patients for COVID they find out that way.”

“Then they’re in the provincial reported data as hospitalization with COVID, but they’re not being hospitalized because of COVID. I would suggest it’s a bit misleading”

Patrick Brown, CTV News

Hospitals will now be asked to filter these numbers out to present a more accurate count that will inevitably prove to be much lower.

What we’re doing with testing right now is something that we’ve never seen before. Imagine testing every single person, including asymptomatic people who aren’t even going to the hospital, for other common respiratory viruses, like the flu, or RSV for example.

Imagine generating a case count and testing everybody who has died with the flu or RSV . Imagine these numbers being added to the death count. When did we test heart attack victims for other viruses and add that to the death count? This has never been done, but with COVID it has. The numbers would be extraordinary. RSV already kills millions of people and has a universal infection rate. It would arguably be higher than COVID.

Not only have COVID “hospitalizations” been inaccurately portrayed, but COVID “deaths” seem to be inaccurately portrayed too. On their own website, the Ontario government states the following in their footnotes (#7),

Any case marked as “Fatal” is included in the deaths data. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death.

This was also expressed by Toronto Public Health as early as June 2020.

Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.

— Toronto Public Health (@TOPublicHealth) June 24, 2020

This means that some deaths, we don’t know how many, that occurred as a result of something else and not COVID have been added to the COVID death count. There is great potential here for misleading inflation of numbers.

The statement from Ontario Public Health echoes statements made multiple times by Canadian public health agencies and personnel. According to Ontario Ministry Health Senior Communications Advisor Anna Miller,

As a result of how data is recorded by health units into public health information databases, the ministry is not able to accurately separate how many people died directly because of COVID versus those who died with a COVID infection.

In the United States, CDC data shows that 95% of people who have died with COVID-19 have had at least one comorbidity listed as a cause of death. The average is four comorbidities. We don’t know enough to say for certain that these people died because of COVID, or if COVID contributed to their death. In some cases it probably did, and in others it probably didn’t. Who knows? This is the problem.

There are many examples of this type of misleading data in multiple countries.

Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic,

If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.

Her statements created a lot of controversy at the time. There is also the possibility of death counts being undercounted.  A recent paper published in the European Journal of Epidemiology by Dr. John Ioannidis (one of the gentleman in the video below), suggests that in many countries, COVID deaths have been over reported while in others, they may have been underreported.

One thing that has definitely not received adequate attention and proper discussion are the catastrophic impacts of lockdowns. Data shows that lockdowns alone have killed more people than COVID. You can dive more into that discussion here if interested.

Below is a video of Dr. Vinay Prasad, MD MPH, and Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Stanford. In it they discuss just how complicated counting and attributing deaths to causes really is. The video is timestaped to start at 56:38, because that’s where they begin to discuss death counts. Just click play.

*

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 Pulse

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Mary T. Bassett said rare incidents of pediatric hospitalizations were brought to the fore ‘to motivate pediatricians and families to seek the protection of vaccination’ for young children who face virtually no risk from COVID-19.

New York State’s acting health commissioner affirmed late last month that she played up extremely rare pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations to promote injecting all children five years old and above with the experimental and abortion-tainted COVID jabs.

The promotion of universal vaccination in young children comes in spite of evidence that children face very minimal risk from COVID-19, and ignores the thousands of reports of serious adverse events and deaths connected with the experimental shots.

During a December 28, 2021, press conference, acting State Health Commissioner Dr. Mary T. Bassett said that while the numbers of pediatric COVID-related hospital admissions were “small,” and while children are not “having an epidemic of infection,” a handful of rare pediatric hospitalizations were given center stage in a recent health alert “to motivate pediatricians and families to seek the protection of vaccination” for young children.

Here’s the clip! pic.twitter.com/11HeYKQu6V

— Keep School Open (@KeepSchoolOpen) December 28, 2021

Bassett’s statements came after she warned of a “striking” uptick in pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations in a December 24 press release put out by the New York State Department of Health.

“The risks of COVID-19 for children are real,” Bassett wrote in the release. “We are alerting New Yorkers to this recent striking increase in pediatric COVID-19 admissions so that pediatricians, parents and guardians can take urgent action to protect our youngest New Yorkers.”

“We must use all available safe and effective infection control, prevention and mitigation strategies,” she continued, urging parents to “[p]rotect your children who are five years and older by getting them fully vaccinated and protect children under five by making sure all of those around them have protection through vaccination, boosters, mask-wearing, avoiding crowds and testing.”

“[These] were small numbers that we reported in our health alert,” Bassett admitted in the December 28 presser. “That was based on 50 hospitalizations and I’ve now given you some larger numbers. But still small numbers.”

The 50 pediatric hospitalizations are among a population of roughly 4 million children under 18 who live in New York, according to census data.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether the children recorded as having been hospitalized with COVID-19 were actually admitted because of the virus.

While asserting a “four-fold increases in COVID-19 hospital admissions for children 18 and under” between December 5 and December 24 and arguing that “[t]hese startling trends underscore the critical importance of protecting our children from COVID-19,” the press release failed to differentiate between children who may have entered the hospital because of COVID-19 compared to those who tested positive while hospitalized for a different reason and may have had minor symptoms or none at all.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has repeatedly urged universal vaccination, last week acknowledged that “if you look at the children that are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to because of COVID.” Fauci also affirmed that children are often counted as COVID-19 hospital admissions if they test positive for the virus after being admitted for an unrelated condition such as “a broken leg or appendicitis.”

Fauci: "If you look at the children that are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with Covid, as opposed to because of Covid." pic.twitter.com/57Rdx8gPg3

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) December 31, 2021

Fauci’s statements have confirmed long-standing suspicions that COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths have been overcounted, with hospitals financially incentivized to unnecessarily record hospitalizations and deaths as COVID-related.

The New York Health Commissioner’s comments and recommendations come in spite of data suggesting that children face a vanishingly small risk from COVID-19, with the American Pediatric Association estimating that between 0.00-0.02% of child COVID cases in the United States have resulted in death. Meanwhile, the thousands of reports of serious adverse events and deaths following the jabs have led numerous experts to criticize the effort to inject children with the experimental shots.

In summer 2021, researchers with Johns Hopkins School of Medicine found a “mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia” when they “analyze[d] approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020.”

Dr. Robert Malone, a prominent virologist and pioneer of the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna injections, has suggested that inoculating the 28 million American children between 5 to 11 years old with the experimental drugs could lead to “1,000 or more excess deaths,” while the risk from COVID-19 for healthy children is “about zero” and appears to be lower than the seasonal flu.

*

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: Mary T. Bassett (screenshot/YouTube)

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

According to Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021, children are having “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shot, yet her concerns are simply dismissed

The average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined. The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant

Children are at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men

Myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a six fold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose

British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots. Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. During those same weeks in 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group — an increase of 47%

*

Click here to watch the video.

The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021.^1,2 Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children — including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias — yet their concerns are simply dismissed.

Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known etiology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.

Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.

And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”

Martin also states she believes the hospital treatment protocol is killing COVID patients. Doctors agree that it’s “not working,” but that “it’s all we have.” But “that’s simply not true,” she says. “It’s just what the CDC will allow us to give.”

What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks

I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.

The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths³ — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.

You can’t even compare the COVID shots to other vaccines. They’re by far the most dangerous injections ever created, yet there doesn’t appear to be a cutoff for acceptable harm. No one within the CDC or Food and Drug Administration, which jointly run VAERS, has addressed these shocking numbers. Both agencies outrageously deny that a single death can be attributed to the COVID jabs, which is simply impossible. It’s not statistically plausible.

The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation. It’s known as the Bradford Hill criteria — a set of 10 criteria that need to be satisfied in order to show strong evidence of causal relationship. One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.

Well, in the case of the COVID jabs, 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80% have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.⁴

Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage

Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.

In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis⁵ of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.

Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et. al.:⁶

“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”

No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:⁷

“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.

His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).

If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:

‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.

Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.

Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’

… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”

Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect

Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper⁸ on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.

You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.

While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56% to 83%.⁹

Patients with acute fulminant myocarditis (characterized by severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring drug therapy or mechanical circulatory support¹⁰) who survive the acute stage have a survival rate of 93% at 11 years, whereas those with acute nonfulminant myocarditis (left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but otherwise hemodynamically stable¹¹) have a survival rate of just 45% at 11 years.¹²

This could mean that anywhere from 7% to 55% of the teens injured by these shots today might not survive into their late 20s or early 30s. Some might not even make it into their early 20s! How is this possibly an acceptable tradeoff for a virus you have practically zero risk of dying from as a child or adolescent?

Excess Deaths Are Exploding, Including Among Teens

Throughout the pandemic, the COVID jab was held out as the way back to normalcy. Yet, despite mass injections and boosters, excess deaths keep rising. For example, in the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths¹³ than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.

COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people. Even more telling is the fact that, since July 2021, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic. Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, and both are known side effects of the COVID jab.

In a November 28, 2021, Twitter post,¹⁴ Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) revealed that in the preceding 13 weeks, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate. In another example, he used data from the CDC and census.gov to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.¹⁵

“Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021,” he tweeted. “That’s 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!”

Even more disturbing, British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots.¹⁶ Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. Between the week ending June 25, 2021, and the week ending September 17, 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group. That’s an increase of 47%!

Deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group. Significant concerns have been raised about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).¹⁷ Is that what’s going on here? As reported by The Exposé, which conducted the investigation:¹⁸

“Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and COVID-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far.”

Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People

As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone,¹⁹ (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.

Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration²⁰ by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.

Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.

Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.²¹

People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:²²

“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”

AMA Is A-OK With Sacrificing Children

Tragically, it’s not only the CDC and FDA that have been captured by the drug industry and who are sacrificing public health, including the health of our children, in order to further the technocratic Great Reset agenda.

Even the American Medical Association, which is supposed to lobby for physicians and medical students in the U.S. and promote medicine for the betterment of public health, has abandoned all semblance of ethics, transparency and honesty.

In a mid-November 2021 article on the AMA’s website, “COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids: How We Know It’s Safe,”²³ contributing news writer Tanya Albert Henry cites data straight from Pfizer’s press release, and then goes on to claim we “know it’s safe” because “younger children see the same side effects as has been seen in adults and teens.” Based on the VAERS data, that should send shivers down parents’ backs.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is on board with vaccinating this age group, along with the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society, said Dr. Fryhofer, chair-elect the AMA Board of Trustees,” Henry writes.

“Dr. Fryhofer … noted that myocarditis has been a rare occurrence after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. ‘The observed risk is highest in young males age 12 to 29, but COVID infection can also cause myocarditis,’ she pointed out. ‘For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination.’”

Really? Where did Fryhofer get that idea? I’ve not seen any data to back that up, and Henry doesn’t provide any.

What Do the VAERS Data Show?

Research published in 2017²⁴ calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S.²⁵ That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.

As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:²⁶

In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger — five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.

Meanwhile, the CDC²⁷ claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009% among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.

After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.

That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7% of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.

We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.²⁸

Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146% among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.

Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146% of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.

In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 2021²⁹).

Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000 — again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.

Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?

There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.

Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Austrian government announced today that the validity of the “Green Passport” has been reduced to six months. This also means that all people who have had their “full vaccination” for the last six months will be relegated to an inferior civil status and become “unvaccinated”.

Even the obedient have become second class people, excluded from social life thanks to the country’s “lockdown for the unvaccinated”. Austrians living in this fact-free dystopian nightmare, are currently faced with two options: Force the government out or take the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and perhaps eternal shot.

Six months ago around 3.8 million Austrians were considered “fully vaccinated”. They trusted the former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and the Greens who had promised that the double injection would “set them free”. Their “civic duty” and “solidarity” would conquer the disease they were told repeatedly and soon everything would return to normal. Or not? Chancellor Nehammer is bringing down the hammer, even on his followers.

Anyone who does not accept the booster shot with the same agent, which has been proven to have no effect against “variants”, is now excluded from social life and is considered a pariah because the unvaccinated are bad, stupid people according to official narrative, who endanger others, are probably even “right-wing extremists” or worse… “terrorists”. Being downgraded to an asocial, stupid, right-wing radical by decree, will be a hard pill to swallow for many.

It is not clear how many people will actually lose their “green” status because a few of those who had been double-jabbed by July 2021, have already had the booster. It could be that around 1.9 million Austrians – in addition to the already unvaccinated – refuse to obey.

Vaccines are an abject failure

A Canadian study has shown that two doses of the jab had no measurable effect on an Omicron infection. The data it contains is explosive. The authors, 13 international scientists, funded by the Canadian Ministry of Health, among others, explicitly state that “two doses of Covid-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta. Our results may be confounded by behaviours that we were unable to account for in our analyses. Further research is needed to examine protection against severe outcomes”.

In short: two administered doses of the Covid-19 vaccine do not work against Omicron. To arrive at this conclusion, 3 442 Omicron cases and 9 201 Delta cases were examined.

Of course, this is not the only paper that indicates that these hyped products have zero use, but data now clearly show that in Germany and Denmark over 90 percent of those infected with Omicron were vaccinated. This is also proven by the current hospitalization figures in Austria.

Facts do not impress Nehammer

Completely unaffected by all the hard data obliterating the current health policy, the Austrian Federal Government continues to cite unspecified “experts” while besieging the population to submit to their evidence-free fanatical dictates. Science has probably never played any role in their decisions and certainly not public health.

“The less effective this Corona vaccine is, the more stubborn the government becomes. Forcing vaccination is neither legally or medically sustainable. Chancellor Nehammer and company prove with their stance that they are not about the welfare of the people,” said Herbert Kickl, leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ).

Rumours on social media will not die down that the Federal Government’s task force has been fully aware that the vaccinations are failing. It is even feared that numerous people could die because their immune systems have been severely weakened as a result of the triple jab. If this information is true, the government’s insistence on mandatory vaccination becomes more and more incomprehensible. A psychologist told the Kronen Zeitung that in such a case “unrest” would explode.

But countless demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of participants have shown that the overwhelming majority of Austrians are not interested in unrest. They demand a return to the rule of law, the granting of basic rights and an end to lockdowns.

*

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: Karl Nehammer, Austrian chancellor. Screenshot from YouTube via Free West Media

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In an interview with Joe Rogan, Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine expert and outspoken critic of our pandemic response, delivered a powerful message to the world. Yes, it’s three hours long, and yes, it’s worth every minute.

Something monumentally important happened in the closing days of 2021.

Joe Rogan, host of the widely viewed “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, interviewed one of the world’s most qualified and unbiased individuals about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines now deployed upon nearly 4 billion human beings.

Dr. Robert Malone, originally an academic pathologist, has run more than 100 clinical trials mostly in the vaccine and drug repurposing spaces.

He has been involved in nearly every infectious disease outbreak since the AIDS epidemic, has worked for the National Institutes of Health awarding millions of dollars in contracts for vaccines and biodefense, and spent “countless hours” at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices meetings.

Malone works closely with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, knows Dr. Anthony Fauci personally and is possibly best known for his instrumental work in developing the platform for mRNA-based vaccine technologies more than 30 years ago.

On Dec. 30, 2021, Malone and Rogan sat down in Rogan’s studio in Austin, Texas, and recorded a riveting three-hour conversation.

Rogan stands alone as an independent voice outside of corporate media that is able to reach a politically and ideologically diverse audience of 11 million or more per episode.

Similarly, Malone is an outspoken critic of vaccine mandates who represents the opinion of a large and growing number of researchers and clinicians who believe our approach to the pandemic has been poorly conceived and stands in opposition to basic tenets of immunology, epidemiology and emerging real-world data.

It was clear both were prepared for the encounter. Rogan reported he had been following the doctor’s tweets, has been reading everything Malone has been writing and was clearly versed in the latest and most salient scientific findings.

Malone, though honed by countless appearances on various platforms, admitted this interview was special because of its potential impact on public opinion.

The conversation opened with Malone summarizing his bonafides and then describing his approach to engaging his audiences.

“I try really hard to get people the information and help them to think, not tell them what to think,” Malone said.

Malone was true to his method throughout, being careful to identify fact from speculation, noting what is observed without assuming intent while helping Rogan explore the rabbit holes that we inevitably encounter when choosing to look just a bit further beyond what has become socially acceptable.

The two spoke of Malone’s recent loss of his Twitter account. The doctor was banned from the platform without warning or explanation. He speculated it may have been due to one or both of his final two tweets, one which brought attention to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s summary of the Pfizer trial, the other to the World Economic Forum’s strategy for managing media around COVID.

Rogan repeatedly voiced his concern around the silencing of opinions from legitimate experts.

Malone responded:

“If it’s not okay for me to be a part of the conversation … even though I’m pointing out facts that may be inconvenient, then who can be allowed? Virtually all others that have [my] background have conflicts of interest…I am not getting any money out of this…”

Over the next two-and-a-half hours the two demonstrated how we can make sense of conflicting messaging and complex data by asking the right questions and being open to the answers, if they exist.

The vaccinologist, inventor and staunch advocate for informed consent told his personal story of getting COVID, suffering from long-COVID, getting the Moderna vaccination and suffering adverse events (stage III hypertension, heart arrhythmias, restless leg syndrome and narcolepsy) after the second jab.

Rogan took full advantage of his time with Malone, asking the questions media refuse to pose to their own identified “experts.”

The result was a full-scale repudiation of our pandemic response from its inception to the vaccine mandates that are in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Malone and Rogan thoroughly probed many angles of our present situation from, T-cell dysfunction to the Trusted News Initiative.

Here are some of the key points discussed with time codes:

• 24:19: An estimated 500,000 COVID Deaths resulted from the suppression of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
• 25:39: Former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Janet Woodcock, intentionally prevented doctors from using HCQ outside of the hospital setting (HCQ is one of the few antiviral medications safe in pregnancy and is largely ineffective once a person has been hospitalized).
• 31:10: Pharma industry’s systematic efforts to discredit ivermectin.
• 32:40: COVID deaths in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh plummeted soon after packets of medicines were distributed to their population. It is suspected these packets included Ivermectin but this was never formally disclosed. This puzzling policy went into effect soon after a meeting between President Biden and Prime Minister Modi.
• 36:28: Increased risk of adverse events from vaccinating after SARS-COV2 infection.
• 38:40: 140 studies demonstrate natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity is 6- to 13-fold better than vaccination in preventing hospitalization.
• 43:44: The Trusted News Initiative employed to protect western elections from foreign influence was used to justify the suppression of “misinformation” around the pandemic.
• 50:15: Emails between NIH Director Francis Collins and Fauci demonstrate an intention to launch a smear campaign against the founders of the Great Barrington Declaration.
• 54:00: How is Israel (highly vaccinated) faring in comparison to Palestine (poorly vaccinated)?
• 57:00: Why is good data nearly impossible to find?
• 1:06:00: The regulatory process is broken because vaccine manufacturers are responsible for their own data (FDA is not doing its job as a regulatory body).
• 1:14:50: Arguably the best clinicians of our day are having their medical licensure attacked.
• 1:22:50: Hong Kong study demonstrates that 1 in 2,700 boys getting hospitalized with myocarditis after vaccination.
• 1:27:00: Lipid nanoparticles pose danger to ovaries.
• 1:46:30: Long COVID and post-vaccination syndrome are impossible to differentiate.
• 1:49:00: Dysregulation of T-cells after vaccination may be causing latent virus reactivation (e.g., shingles).
• 1:59:00: Omicron and the possible negative efficacy of vaccines.
• 2:06:20: What is Original Antigenic Sin?
• 2:20:00: Monoclonal antibody therapies are still important but have been limited by our authorities.
• 2:22:10: Vaccine mandates are illegal.
• 2:35:50: Pfizer is one of the most criminal pharmaceutical organizations in the world.
• 2:37:00: What are mass formation psychosis and tribalism?
• 2:53:00: We are having a worldwide epidemic of suicide in children.

Conclusion

Malone concludes, “There are two hills that I am willing to die on. The first is stopping the jabs on the children. [The other] is resisting the erosion of free speech …”

It is clear the former can only be accomplished if the latter is as well. Though this three-hour exchange sheds light on the numerous challenges we face as a society, it can only result in real transformation if people are willing and able to listen.

Four days after this content was released, YouTube removed the video from its platform. It can still be seen here on Bitchute.

As Malone repeatedly pointed out, Big Tech, Big Pharma and governmental authorities are concerted in their efforts to suppress any dissenting opinion at any cost, including the health of our children.

Clarity, it seems, will only emerge from sources untrammeled by corporate interests.

Thankfully the magnitude of the problem was not lost on Rogan who stated, “I am compelled to have people like you on because I don’t know where else this is going to get out.”

He’s right.

Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) submitted the full transcript of Rogan’s interview with Malone to the Congressional Record, where it cannot be cnesored.

Watch the full interview with Malone on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast:

*

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.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.  —Dr. Benjamin Rush

Freedom of choice must be brought to bear upon the US Medical practice. —Congressman Phil Crane

One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.  —William Osler (1849-1919) Described as the Father of Modern Medicine

They do not cover the new variants; patients are failing on these vaccines. They’re being hospitalized and getting sick despite having had the vaccines.The vaccines at this point in time have amounted to record mortality and injury and should be considered unsafe and unfit for human use. —Dr. Peter A. McCullough

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the mild-mannered former chief medical executive of the MD Anderson Cancer Center, became the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration shortly after the coronavirus broke out in China.

He quickly found himself in an uncomfortable position. The White House wanted an emergency approval of one of the vaccines being developed to treat COVID-19.  Under a massive and secretive government effort, “Operation Warp Speed,” was one of the most consequential public health decisions in American history. The FDA’s scientific determinations, as to whether a vaccine is safe and effective enough to give to millions of healthy Americans, are dicey enough. But Hahn, like so many top federal health officials, seemed to have found himself in a tightening vice.

President Trump, his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and his son-in-law and special adviser, Jared Kushner,all called Dr. Hahn directly, urging him to accelerate emergency authorization of vaccines and treatments, i.e., Remdesivir.

If Hahn didn’t cave and accelerate the approval, potentially jeopardizing safety, the decision could be taken from the FDA and rammed through by Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Alex Azar, the former President of Eli Lilly USA.  Hahn also knew that if he stood up to Trump, he would be fired. He was willing to be dismissed rather than serve as a presidential puppet.

On December 10, 2020, Dr. Hahn testified during a Senate “Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Hearing” on the federal government response to COVID-19.  White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows had pressed Hahn to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine by the end of the day on December 11, 2020.

Biopharmaceutical History

The history of all four pharmaceutical companies involved in creating the COVID-19 jab is certainly not pretty.  America’s Medical Mafia: Biopharmaceutical Companies, written in May of this year, exposed the past of these companies and the many lawsuits against them.  Because the COVID vax is an EUA, it is protected from lawsuits by the federal government via the PREP Act signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The US Government has a secret history of grisly experiments on animals and humans, and these COVID jabs are no different; Americans are human lab rats.  In 2010, I wrote a ten-part article entitled, American Citizens as Guinea Pigs. Part two included the detrimental polio vaccine tainted with Simian Virus-40 which causes soft tissue cancers and is genetically passed.  It was never pulled from the market.

Here is a partial list of the many failed drugs taken off market after dangerous side effects or deaths.  This does not include the 1976 swine flu vaccine pulled after 25 to 50 deaths.

Trump Promotes Vax/Boosters

If you’ve had the CCP virus, you have lifetime immunity as evidenced in 140 studies.  You do not need the Sars-coV-2 jabs, or any of the boosters.  Dr. Peter McCullough states, “Once and done.”  There is no need to worry about getting the virus again.

Dr. McCullough writes that there are risks for those who have recovered from the CCP virus who then receive the Sars-voV-2 jabs.  Medical research concludes that the COVID-19 jabs are dangerous for those who have already had the virus and have recovered with inferred robust, complete, and durable immunity.A medical study of United Kingdom healthcare workers who had already had COVID-19 and then received the vaccine found that they suffered higher rates of side effects than the average population.

So why has former President Trump taken both jabs and now the booster when he obviously recovered from the virus while he was still the 45^th president?  Or did he take them?  Did he get the placebo instead?  Doesn’t he have physicians who will tell him the truth? Doesn’t he do any research?  Doesn’t he read?

Why wasn’t he and his family put on Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin to keep them from ever contracting the virus?

Where was Dr. Scott Atlas with this important information, or did Trump rebuff him?  There are simply too many unanswered questions and too many statements by Trump that are untrue.

Trump tell us we’re playing right into their hands when we doubt the vaccine. Whose hands? He made the remarks during a live event with former Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly.“We did something historic, we saved tens of millions of lives worldwide,” said Trump, before going on to credit the vaccine for preventing a repeat of the Spanish flu, which infected nearly a third of the world and killed as many as 100 million people.  The reality is the carnage from the lethal injections will make the 1917 flu pale in comparison.

The comparison is somewhat alarmist given that the Spanish flu had a 2.5% global mortality rate, which is substantially larger than Sars-coV-2’s actual mortality rate when you discount the many PCR false positive tests.  Many who had bacterial pneumonia and could have been saved with antibiotics were left to die because C-19 was diagnosed, and that’s not even mentioning the worthless stakeholder/medical protocols used on C-19 hospital patients.

Despite Trump’s glorification of the vax, he said it shouldn’t be mandatory.  Well, it isn’t mandatory for federal politicians and stakeholders, and the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens crossing our southern border.

When interviewed by Candace Owens, our 45^thpresident claimed no one had been hurt by these jabs, when that is just a flat out lie!  Over 111 airline pilots are dead from the jab, over 75 sports figures have died on the fields, young men are getting myocarditis, which destroys their heart muscle with inflammation.  Even Trump’s buddy, Franklin Graham ended up with pericarditis.  Graham told us we all should get the vax, that if Jesus were here, he’d get the vax.  What absolute total rubbish!

Trump should take a look at the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) numbers out by Lifesite News from Dec. 14, 2020 to Dec. 10, 2021.  Only one percent is reported, so multiply the numbers by 100 and you’ll get the actual death and adverse effect figures since the clot shot came out.

To top it off, Trump echoes the commie Pravda media and tells Candace that 90% of the people in hospitals are unvaccinated, when exactly the opposite is true.  Those in hospital sick with Sars-coV-2 are jabbed with one or all of the clot shots including the booster, but if you’ve had the jabs within the last two weeks, hospitals count you as unvaxed.  And many get sick or die within the first two weeks after the inoculation.  Trump is spewing information from CNN, MSNBC, Fauci and the snakeholders.

There has never been a vaccine for a virus!  We know this is not a real vaccine!  Why would Trump promote such a thing?  Is it pride?  That’s the only thing that makes sense. He keeps lauding the fact that he and he alone created “Operation Warp Speed” and saved the country from COVID…a virus 99.8% recover from.  We all know, “Pride goeth before the fall.”

COVID Jabs are Shielded

Take note that the federal government shields Pfizer/Moderna/J&J from liability and has given them billions of dollars and is forcing Americans to take their product. But they won’t let you see the data supporting its safety/efficacy. Just who does the government work for?

The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.  It’s been 58 years since John F. Kennedy was assassinated and even Donald J. Trump did not release the truth to the public.

As explained in this article, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

More than 30 academics, professors, and scientists from this country’s most prestigious universities requested the data and information submitted to the FDA by Pfizer to license its COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA’s response?  It produced nothing.  In September, Attorney Aaron Siri’s firm filed a lawsuit against the FDA on behalf of this group to demand this information.  To date, almost three months after it licensed Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA still had not released a single page; finally it released under 100 pages which you can read here.

Support for Trump

I know in my heart the 2020 election was rigged, that Donald J. Trump won the election, hands down.  Our 45^th president did many wonderful things for this country, and we had a four-year Nineveh.  (If you don’t know the story, read the book of Jonah in the Old Testament; it comes right after Obadiah, and right before Micah and is important history.)

My 2016 support for Donald Trump never wavered.  I wrote article after article supporting him, two of which he actually used in rallies and the first one helped him to get rid of Jeb Bush.  The second article he used at a rally in Alabama explaining why the media is allowed to lie about public figures.  Why Alabama?  Because that’s where these legal suits started and then ended with the Supreme Court decision in NYTs v. Sullivan.

The mere fact that it took President Trump four years to realize just exactly who and what his Vice President really was, and who and what his Senior Counselor, Kellyanne Conway was…tells me the man has little discernment as to those who are really on his side. Pence sent Trump to controlled-opposition Heritage Foundation and Conway sent him to the Federalist Society, both of whom steered Trump to Supreme Court nominees who, we now know, are anything but conservative.  Conway and Pence have been friends for years and have family who are intermarried.  They worked together.

Pence was given challenge after challenge by Trump, and failed at every one of them, including being in charge of the Coronavirus Task Force.  He gave us Fauci, Birx and Redfield and they destroyed our economy and Trump…just as their handlers planned. Read Pence’s history… [Link], [Link], [Link], [Link].

On January 6^th, 2021, Pence stabbed Trump in the back and the Republic in the heart.  Finally, after four years, Trump saw the real face of his Vice President…one who had no problem elbow bumping with Pelosi.

Throughout Trump’s administration, he never chose people outside the Deep State.  He hired from the swamp over and over and over again.  He took Chris Christie’s suggestion and hired Christopher Wray as FBI Director.  Then he listened to Attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing and hired Deep Stater Bill Barr as Attorney General.

Only once did he hire outside the swamp when he appointed Lt. General Michael T. Flynn as National Security Advisor.  General Flynn was his finest choice and was terminated within weeks by the deceit and duplicity of the FBI and their backdoor into Pence’s office.  Pence’s Chief of Staff was Josh Pitcock whose wife worked for Peter Strzok and Lisa Page allegedly checking Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Trump listened to Deep Stater Pence rather than the General who had decades of intel knowledge.  He needed General Flynn, but he ended up with Deep Staters in that very important position over and over again.  Far too many people saw his choices as guided by those from the swamp and completely incompatible with Trump, which they proved to be.  A prime example is that Christopher Wray is still head of the FBI and Trump should have pulled his nomination during Wray’s Senate hearings.

Conclusion

Around the world hundreds of thousands have died, not from Sars-coV-2, but from the messenger RNA vaccines, millions have suffered permanent disabilities and adverse effects.  The buck ultimately stops with Trump.  He chose to put Pence in charge of the Coronavirus Task Force, and Pence brought in the Deep State stakeholders. The NIH, FDA, CDC or AMA never approved any early home treatment and banned long approved safe and cheap drugs that would have cured.

People were told there was nothing to be done, go home…and when it got worse, they went to the hospital, were put on oxygen and then ventilators, and 80% of them died.  The ultimate goal was the huge moneymaker for Big Pharma…the “vaccines.” Dr. McCullough tells us that 86% of the people who died of the virus could have been saved, but obviously that was not the goal of the snake holders.

Excuses for Trump can be made, yet the buck stops with him.  He was our Commander in Chief.  There is no question that the guilt of negligence is Trump’s, but the guilt of homicide belongs to Big Pharma. They were the ones that knew what they were doing. Trump’s negligence was not blowing the whistle on them and firing Fauci and the heads of these fraudulent government entities. You can make the case of malicious contempt in the action of Fauci and the officials of Big Pharma, all of whom need to do time at the very least.  Trump keeps pushing the lethal vax, why? Is it pride alone?  Is it stupidity?  Or is it that he is not what he represented himself to be?

Would I ever support Trump again?  Only if he is man enough to admit that he made a mistake and provide leadership that results in correction. Repentance is the foundation of our Judeo-Christian faith.

*

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.

Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Previously, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The more that people realize the reality of what’s happening in Kazakhstan, the more that they’ll realize that the CSTO peacekeeping mission there is much more peaceful, democratic, and stabilizing than the US’ own ‘peacekeeping missions’.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question on Thursday about Kazakhstan. Here’s a transcript of that exchange from the official White House website:

“Q  And then, on the situation in Kazakhstan, does what is happening there in any way change the dynamic for the U.S.-Russia talks that are going to begin next week, from the U.S. side? And is there any thought that Putin might be less likely to invade Ukraine while this crisis is playing out in Kazakhstan?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me touch on a couple of things. First, to provide all of you an update — and you may have seen this — but today, Secretary Blinken shared a productive call with Kazakhstan foreign minister — with the Kazakhstan foreign minister, where he reaffirmed the United States full support for Kazakhstan’s constitutional institutions, human rights, media freedom, including through the restoration of Internet service, and advocated for a peaceful, rights- respecting resolution to the crisis.

There have been, kind of, a range of reports about peacekeeping forces, which I think you might be referencing, but — from Russia. We are closely monitoring reports that the Collective Security Treaty Organization have dispatched its collective peacekeeping forces to Kazakhstan. We have questions about the nature of this request and whether it has — it was a legitimate invitation or not. We don’t know at this point.

The world will, of course, be watching for any violation of human rights and actions that may lay the predicate for the seizure of Kazakh institutions, and we call on the CSTO collective peacekeeping forces and law enforcement to uphold international human rights obligations in order to support a peaceful resolution.”

It’s not her place or anyone else’s actually to question the legitimacy of the CSTO’s Kazakhstani peacekeeping mission.

The Russian-led bloc is carrying out a limited intervention at the request of  Kazakhstan’s President Tokayev, whom the American government also recognizes. There are also no credible concerns that the CSTO is violating human rights though it was predictable that the US-led West would fearmonger about that scenario in a desperate attempt to discredit this operation. Washington doesn’t like that Moscow is supporting genuine democracy in Kazakhstan since this contradicts everything that the US government ever said about its Russian counterpart.

To elaborate, the CSTO’s Kazakhstani mission is predicated on “regime reinforcement”, which is the opposite of the US’ regime change policy. It deserves mentioning that America’s anti-Russian “deep state” faction might have played a role in catalyzing the Hybrid War of Terror on Kazakhstan in a last-ditch gamble to sabotage the upcoming negotiations on de-escalating the undeclared US-provoked missile crisis in Europe. Even if the Biden Administration didn’t approve of this operation, it’ll still want to exploit Russia’s response as part of its ongoing information warfare campaign against that country.

The CSTO was invited into Kazakhstan and didn’t invade it like NATO did Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo & Metohija where the American-led alliance carried out its own “peacekeeping missions” and still does in the last-mentioned. It importantly wasn’t preceded by a “shock and awe” campaign either nor did the CSTO overthrow Kazakhstan’s government and replace it with a puppet regime before intervening. The contrast between the Russian-led mission in Kazakhstan and the American-led ones in the earlier mentioned places powerfully erodes the US’ soft power.

Kazakhstan’s national model of democracy is under threat from regime change terrorists that are waging Hybrid Warfare against this geostrategically located Central Asian nation. Its people are literally living in fear of the terrorists that took over their country’s largest city in the span of just several hours, which made Kazakhstan’s January 5^th way worse than the US’ January 6^th. Attacking members of the security services (let alone beheading them), seizing and burning government buildings, and even taking over an airport are indisputable acts of terrorism, not “peaceful pro-democracy protests”.

Russia is therefore literally saving Kazakhstan’s democracy, freeing its people from the reign of terror that they’ve suddenly been forced to suffer under, and thus stabilizing the region. This objective observation discredits the US’ fake news narrative that Russia is an “anti-democratic regional destabilizer”, which is why Psaki so desperately attempted to malign its peacekeeping mission in Kazakhstan. She can’t let Russia get away with looking good lest the global masses begin questioning the basis of her country’s information warfare campaign against it.

The more that people realize the reality of what’s happening in Kazakhstan, the more that they’ll realize that Russia’s pro-democracy anti-terrorist peacekeeping mission there is much more peaceful, democratic, and stabilizing than the US’ own “peacekeeping missions”. It’s the latter whose legitimacy should be questioned and serious concerns raised about its soldiers’ widespread violation of the most basic human rights. The US has a track record of death, destruction, and despair whenever it intervenes to overthrow other governments while Russia’s Kazakhstani operation is legal, peaceful, and stabilizing.

*

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 regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID and chief medical adviser to the president, has suggested that vaccines may be mandatory to fly domestically as another incentive to get people vaccinated; he doesn’t mention reducing the spread of the virus

As reports of disruptive and violent passengers continues to rise, having reached 2,900 since January 1, 2021, Fauci recently said that taking off masks while on airplanes is “not something we should even be considering”

Evidence before and during the pandemic does not support the use of masks. Although the newest variant has symptoms nearly identical to a cold, is responsible for 73% of the infections and has killed one person, Fauci says the virus is set to “take over this winter”

This is a new type of war, aimed against society to bring in a totalitarian regime bent on eliminating your freedom. There are steps we can take to keep their planned horrors at bay

*

If Dr. Anthony Fauci had not been a household name before 2020 — or at least since the 1980s — he most certainly has become one since. Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical adviser to the president.

Just two days after Christmas 2021, in an interview with MSNBC, Fauci proposed that vaccinations may become a requirement to fly within the U.S.^1,2 He supports this despite continued reports of breakthrough infections,³ recommendations to wear masks no matter how many shots you’ve had⁴and overwhelming numbers of people experiencing adverse effects, including death.⁵

Much of Fauci’s power lies in his capacity to fund, arm, pay, maintain and effectively deploy a large and sprawling standing army of helpmates in whatever demands, mandates and other intrusions on your personal freedom he may think of. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone controls an annual $37 billion budget distributed in over 50,000 grants supporting over 300,000 positions globally in medical research.⁶

In his latest book released November 16, 2021,⁷ “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmental activist and attorney, revealed and documented many of Fauci’s demonstrably illegal practices that have placed the health and welfare of U.S. citizens under fire.

The book follows Fauci’s career, which he launched during the AIDS crisis by partnering with pharmaceutical companies. At the time, they developed and executed a plan that has since been repeated during the COVID-19 pandemic — which was to sabotage all safe and effective known treatments to benefit Big Pharma.⁸

Fauci’s power and political reach highly influences the recommendations of the FDA and CDC, and subsequently health care providers who either don’t or won’t read independent research to form their own opinions. Steve Kirsch⁹ recently published remarks made by his friend, Dr. Harvey Cohen,¹⁰ pediatric hematologist and oncologist from Stanford Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, which are indicative of the current state of affairs in health care.

When Kirsch asked Cohen if he was going to speak out or be silent about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, Cohen responded by discrediting those who do speak out: “The hospitals are filling with non-vaccinated COVID patients. Why don’t you speak out in favor of getting people vaccinated so we will have fewer hospital admissions and fewer deaths?” Later Cohen ended the conversation, writing:¹¹

“We are in alternative worlds. There is no conspiracy about vaccines, only attempts to control the severity of the pandemic. Sorry, I cannot deal with your misinformation. Please don’t write me anymore about it. I rely on the CDC and FDA to give me the information I need to take care of patients.”

Fauci’s Suggestion to Vax for Flights Is Not for Safety

In his interview with MSNBC Fauci revealed there were ongoing conversations to reduce the number of days individuals who had been exposed to COVID-19 may have to quarantine. During the interview he said:¹²

“One of the things we have to be careful of, is that when you have so many people who are exposed but not necessarily infected but in general they have to stay out of action for 10 days. If they have an essential job, we want to get them back at that job before the 10-day period. And that’s what’s just being discussed very seriously by the CDC.”

In other words, vaccinated or not, if you have been exposed but do not have symptoms by day five, the CDC was considering reducing the quarantine period. Within hours, the CDC made the announcement,¹³ and Fauci appeared on CNN¹⁴ discussing why the quarantine period was reduced. In response to the question, why reduce the quarantine time now, Fauci responded:¹⁵

“With the sheer volume of new cases that we are having, and we expect to continue with Omicron, one of the things we want to be careful of is that we don’t have so many people out. If you are asymptomatic, we want to get people back to their jobs, particularly those with essential jobs, to keep our society running smoothly.”

In other words, it appears that the decision to shorten the quarantine time is based solely to ensure the country has enough people to run essential services. In the same interview, Fauci said that despite thinking a vaccine mandate to fly was something he supports, he was not going to say whether he would personally ask the president to issue such a mandate:¹⁶

“I’m not going to tell you that for the simple reason that I don’t want to be publicly telling you what I’m recommending to the president because then if the president doesn’t do it, I don’t want to make it look like the president is going against it. The president takes all recommendations, all discussion and as a group we make a decision about what’s best to do. …

If you’re talking about a requirement to get on a plane domestically that is just another requirement that’s reasonable to consider. I think that’s what we’re talking about. When you make vaccination a requirement, that’s another incentive to get people vaccinated. If you want to do that with domestic flights, I think that’s something that should be seriously considered.”

Fauci’s interview triggers more questions than it answers. Why shorten the quarantine time after nearly two years of “emergency” living? Could it be that there are too many essential workers refusing the vaccine¹⁷ and a 10-day quarantine would hamstring the country?

More importantly, Fauci did not mention safety reason for mandating vaccination on domestic flights. Instead, his reasoning was to use a forced shot as “another incentive to get people vaccinated.” It appears he is taking a page from Nike’s famous advertising slogan¹⁸ as the narrative changes from safety to “Just do it.”

Airlines Backing Masks for Financial Reasons, Not Science

Although CNBC reports¹⁹ that “there is no indication at this point that a vaccine mandate is on its way for U.S. flights,” during the past 18 months, Fauci has historically made suggestions which subsequently come to pass.

He also clearly signaled that masks are here to stay for the foreseeable future when he said that taking off masks while on airplanes is “not something we should even be considering.”²⁰

In December 2021, the executives of American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Southwest testified at a Senate hearing that air quality in the planes is controlled by electrostatically-sprayed, high-grade disinfectant and HEPA air filters that remove up to “99.99% of airborne particles.” They concurred with the Southwest Airlines executive’s statement:²¹

“I think the case is very strong that masks don’t add much if anything in the air cabin environment. It is very safe, and very high quality compared to any other indoor setting.”

The CEO for United Airlines noted their partnership with Cleveland Clinic and the testing the Department of Defense had performed on United’s airplanes, concluding the air quality was safer than many other indoor areas because of the filtration.²² Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, spoke in rebuttal in what Forbes magazine called a “swift and thorough fact check.”

She made the point that the mannequins used during the study referenced by United Airlines CEO did not move and did not eat, alluding to the fact that masks do not provide an effective seal. She also pointed out that the older planes do not have the HEPA filtration — and that concluded her swift and thorough “fact” check.

After the Senate hearing the CEO of Delta and American Airlines backpedaled their statements.²³CNN Business²⁴ reports that Nelson said the reason airline tickets are being sold close to prepandemic levels today are because the mask mandate has led to greater confidence in airline passengers.

Kerry Tan, professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland agrees with Nelson. “I can’t speak to the science of whether masks help, but my thoughts with the mask mandate is that they help with booking leisure travel. I feel like it generally will give passengers peace of mind,” he told CNN Business.²⁵

If you read the studies, they don’t support mask use. When you start to search for data on wearing masks as a strategy to reduce your risk of infection, here’s a sample of what you’ll find:

• Surgical masks and N95 masks perform nearly the same.²⁶
• Cloth masks perform far worse as was demonstrated in a 2015 study²⁷ of health care workers and flu-like illness. The researchers cautioned against cloth masks for occupational health and safety reasons.
• A review of the evidence²⁸ of nonpharmacological personal protective equipment to reduce the spread of flu published by the CDC found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks” in a community setting.
• According to the CDC,^29,30 71% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 reported they “always” wore a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days before getting sick.
• According to a guidance memo by the WHO:³¹ “At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.”

Airline Mask Rules Trigger Disruptive and Violent Passengers

In other words, instead of addressing the science that does not support the use of masks to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, or educating airline customers about the science, several CEOs, Nelson and the economic professor from Loyola decided it’s easier and more financially advantageous to mandate masks and go with the flow. Yet, recent news reports of disruptive and violent passengers do not fit what they hoped.

In June 2021, The Washington Post³² reported an “unprecedented rise in disruptive passengers” on flights, warning that “experts say it could get worse.” The article recounted when a Southwest passenger knocked out a flight attendant’s teeth and a man was arrested after banging on the cockpit door of a Delta flight.

Speaking to The Washington Post, Nelson said “There is constant conflict on board. I think there’s a potential that this can get worse.”³³ The Federal Aviation Administration received 2,900 reports of unruly passengers since January 1, 2021, and 2,200 of those were about the mask mandate.

Most recently was a two-minute video posted on Twitter³⁴ showing an unmasked woman in the aisle yelling at a seated unmasked man who was eating. She had to be restrained and taken to the back of the plane after she assaulted him and spit on him for not wearing a mask.

Fauci Warns Coronavirus Cold May ‘Take Over This Winter’

According to Kennedy, “Fauci uses the financial clout at his disposal to wield extraordinary influence over hospitals, universities, journals and thousands of influential doctors and scientists — whose careers and institutions he has the power to ruin, advance or reward.”³⁵

Earlier this year, Fauci received a $1 million prize from Israel for “speaking truth to power” as “the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health.”³⁶ This a far cry from the documented evidence presented in Kennedy’s book, or from the Freedom of Information Act release of Fauci’s emails³⁷ or from the documentation presented before the Senate.^38,39

It is vital to remember that coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s⁴⁰ and are among the viruses responsible for the common cold. The newest mutation of SARS-CoV-2 is called Omicron, and thus far, while the variant has accounted for 73% of new cases⁴¹ in the U.S., only one man with underlying health conditions has died.

Perhaps this is because the symptoms of Omicron are nearly identical to a cold, with cough, fatigue, congestion and runny nose the most prominent symptoms. Yet, Fauci continues fear mongering, warning that Omicron is going to “take over this winter” and Americans should brace for a “tough few weeks to months.”⁴²

This Is the New War

There is no doubt we are in a sophisticated war and anyone capable of rational thought and an inkling of desire for freedom is the designated enemy. Everywhere you look, officials are spewing easily provable lies, yet the mainstream media run with it and large numbers of people are swallowing the information without thinking twice.

It is not hard to imagine a future where the population is so grossly misinformed that there’s no one left to even consider questioning the narrative handed to them. Importantly, as explained by Mattias Desmet,⁴³ professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, totalitarianism differs from dictatorships.

Since totalitarian regimes commit their worst atrocities once dissenting voices have been silenced, many planned horrors can be kept at bay by keeping the pressure on, and by vocalizing dissent. By speaking out and uniting in the fight for freedom we also provide a better alternative to those who otherwise would simply go along with the program, for fear of being ostracized.

“In my opinion, it is not an option to stop speaking,” Desmet says. “It’s the most important thing we can do.”⁴⁴ We also need to create parallel structures — businesses, organizations, technologies, movements and creative pursuits that fit within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within the totalitarian world.

According to Desmet, totalitarianism will always self-destruct in the end. The psychological underpinnings are so self-destructive that the system ends up killing its own. That’s the good news. The bad news is a totalitarian system can survive for long periods of time before petering out, and there tend to be few survivors at the end.

That said, Desmet believes this new global totalitarianism is more unstable than regional dictator-led totalitarian systems, so it may self-destruct faster. The key is to survive outside the totalitarian system while we patiently resist it and wait for its self-destruction.

*

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

Notes

¹ New York Times, December 27, 2021

^2, 16 MSNBC, December 27, 2021, Minute 8:08

³ Johns Hopkins Medicine, November 23, 2021

⁴ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 15, 2021

⁵ Open VAERS, COVID Data

⁶ Bitchute, November 9, 2021, Minute 1:45

^7, 35 The Defender, August 18, 2021

⁸ Simon and Schuster, The Real Anthony Fauci

⁹ Steve Kirsch, December 26, 2021

¹⁰ Stanford, Harvey Cohen

¹¹ Steve Kirsch, December 26, 2021, para 4 and first quote under the numbered text

¹² MSNBC, December 27, 2021, Minute 3:25

¹³ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 17, 2021

^14, 15 CNN Health, December 27, 2021

¹⁷ ABC News, September 30, 2021

¹⁸ YouTube, August 30, 2017

¹⁹ CNBC, December 27, 2021

²⁰ Fox News, December 17, 2021

^21, 22, 23 Forbes, December 17, 2021

²⁴ CNN Business, December 15, 2021

²⁵ CNN Business, December 20, 2021, para 7

²⁶ JAMA 2009;302(17):1865

²⁷ BMJ Open 2015;5:e006577

²⁸ Emerging Infectious Diseases May 2020; 26(5)

²⁹ CDC.gov MMWR September 11, 2020; 69(36)

³⁰ Breitbart, October 14, 2020, para 7

³¹ WHO.int Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19

^32, 33 Washington Posts, June 11, 2021

³⁴ Twitter, Election Wizard

³⁶ Your Tango, February 16, 2021

³⁷ RT, December 19, 2021

³⁸ YouTube, December 1, 2021

³⁹ YouTube, June 29, 2021

⁴⁰ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Human Coronavirus Types

⁴¹ NBC News, December 7, 2021

⁴² CNN Health, December 20, 2021

⁴³ YouTube, October 20, 2021, Min 1:27

⁴⁴ YouTube, October 20, 2021, Min 44:34

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

A strange wave of protests has broken out in Kazakhstan in this first week of 2022, affecting the entire social structure of the country. The public excuse for the demonstrations is popular discontent with the rising price of gas in the country, but the protests have not ceased even with the government lowering prices, revealing that it is likely to be greater interests being disputed. Considering the strategic importance of Kazakhstan, some analysts suspect the involvement of American and Turkish agents interested in creating instability and tensions in Central Asia, mutually affecting Moscow and Beijing.

The first week of 2022 is being very turbulent in Kazakhstan. A strong wave of protests broke out against the government, apparently motivated by the exponential increase in the price of liquefied petroleum gas. This type of fuel is commonly used in the country at low prices, as a substitute for gasoline, whose value is higher. On Saturday, the first day of the year, the government approved a law to increase the price of the gas, which possibly prompted a serious social crisis, with the emergence of protests.

The regions with the greatest focus of protests are precisely those where most of the fuel is produced, mainly the city of Janaozen and the province of Aktau. The demonstrations quickly reached Almaty, the country’s largest city, home to around 8% of Kazakhstan’s total population. The situation was completely out of the authorities’ control, with car burnings, depredation, occupation of public buildings, vandalism and violent attacks on police and civilians, resulting in an uncertain number of injured and dead people.

The government, under intense pressure, announced some measures to alleviate the crisis. The price of gas has dropped considerably, reaching the mark of US$ 0.11 per liter in regions like Mangystau – where Aktau city is located. However, this was not enough to contain the violence of the protesters, who continued to carry out acts of vandalism and disrupt public order. Threatening even more the social and economic structure of the country, the protesters invaded and occupied the Almaty airport, which caused a major inconvenience for the local population. Part of the government capitulated to the pressure, which resulted in Prime Minister Askar Mamin’s resignation. On the other hand, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev declared a state of emergency and promised a tough response against protesters.

The president asked the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – an alliance of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan – to help restore order in the country’s cities. The assistance was immediate, with troops, vehicles and equipment being sent in order to help Kazakh security forces regain control over the cities. The clashes have been severe, with many deaths reported. Many protesters are using weapons and confronting agents with guerrilla tactics. CSTO’s work has been effective in reducing chaos, but the violence is not expected to end soon.

Faced with this type of situation, it is practically impossible not to suspect the possibility of foreign interference. Obviously, it is possible that the protests started organically, with the population dissatisfied with the prices, but clearly there is more to it than mere popular dissatisfaction. Definitely, it is not common for the people to continue acting with such violence, even after the government partially attends the demands – considering that the price of gas has been reduced. Also, the extreme use of force against police and military personnel does not seem to be an attitude usual of popular collectives. It is very likely that there is something beyond popular dissatisfaction and that foreign groups are interfering in the situation to take advantage of the tensions and provoke a possible color revolution.

The most interested in a situation like this in Kazakhstan are the US and Turkey. Both countries have a very strong interest in gaining influence over the Central Asian post-Soviet space and, for that, they want to undermine Russian and Chinese influence in the region. For this, Kazakhstan seems an extremely strategic point, considering its proximity to Russia and the Xinjiang region of China. Beijing certainly fears that a colorful revolution in Kazakhstan will develop into a wave of rebellions across Central Asia, as that would mean the possibility of a Uighur insurrection. Moscow, in the same sense, fears the destabilization of the entire post-Soviet zone, which comprises a large part of its border territory and strategic environment.

The US is currently looking to increase the number of its military bases in Central Asian countries to fill the US troop deficit in the region after the defeat in Kabul. For its part, Ankara wants to expand across Central Asia as part of its pan-Turkish geopolitics. With this, Kazakhstan becomes a point of common interest for the Americans and Turks to act as destabilizing agents, harming Eurasian integration precisely at the moment of closer ties between Russia and China.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that a summit between NATO and Russia on the Ukrainian issue will soon take place. With this, it is possible that Washington is sending a message to Moscow saying that it is willing to negotiate the situation in Eastern Europe, but that, in return, will intensify activities in Central Asia – which would mean a change of geopolitical focus in the tensions between the West. and Russia.

In fact, there are many possibilities. The strategic importance of Kazakhstan is immense, and it is very likely that some degree of foreign involvement will be revealed soon. The Russian government has already issued a public statement asking that no state interfere in the local crisis, saying that Kazakhstan will solve its problems by its own means. The most likely situation is that the crisis will soon be appeased and that the plans for a color revolution will fail, as NATO’s real objective is only to generate instability in the region, not to provoke large-scale conflicts. Given that there is already a CSTO’s intervention, it is unlikely that there is any Western interest in further arming the protesters, creating a possible war.

Despite the possibility of appeasement, there is a clear message coming from these protests: NATO is ready to act strongly in Central Asia. And this will be the biggest challenge to be faced by the Eurasian integration project.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from TASS

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A huge new study has found the risk of serious heart problems called myocarditis in men under 40 soars with each dose of a Covid mRNA vaccine – and is sharply higher than the risk from a coronavirus infection itself.

The findings call into sharp question the efforts by American colleges and universities to make their students receive booster shots before returning to school this January – especially since other studies have shown that the risk of post-vaccine myocarditis is concentrated not merely in men under 40 but in those aged 16-25.

The study, which British researchers released in late December, showed that the risk of myocarditis almost doubled after the first Pfizer shot in men under 40. Then it doubled again after the second and doubled again after the third – to almost eight times the baseline risk.

Source

For the Moderna vaccine, the risks were even higher, reaching 16-fold after the second shot. (The risk of a third Moderna shot could not be calculated because too few people received it.)

Because each Moderna shot contains 100 micrograms of mRNA, while each Pfizer shot contains 30, the findings suggest strongly that the heart risks are dose-related and likely to continue to rise with each additional shot.

The study also contained some evidence that post-vaccine myocarditis might be more dangerous than other forms of myocarditis. It showed a trend towards higher death rates in people hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination compared to other myocarditis cases.

Both myocarditis and pericarditis are forms of heart inflammation that can be very serious, even deadly. In an appendix, the researchers reported that 263 Britons were hospitalized for myocarditis within four weeks of receiving a Pfizer shot; of those, 38, or 14 percent, died. Only about 9 percent of people hospitalized for myocarditis that did not follow an mRNA vaccination died.

The researchers did not look at other potential cardiovascular risks, such as heart attacks or irregular heartbeats, although American and European databases of post-vaccine side effects contain many reports of those as well.

The findings come even as many colleges and universities – including public schools like the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, large private schools such as Syracuse University, and Ivy League institutions such as Princeton University – demand that their students receive a booster Covid shot before returning to campus.

For nearly all these students, an mRNA shot is the only viable option, as the Johnson & Johnson shot is no longer in common use.

These colleges are likely subjecting their male students to a risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, a related illness, that is much higher than the overall risk of Covid, which is vanishingly small for healthy teenagers and young adults. Many larger universities are likely to have multiple cases of male students hospitalized for myocarditis as a result of the mandates.

The massive study was is based on data from 42 million Britons who received at least one Covid vaccine dose, including roughly 22 million who received the mRNA vaccines.

About half were given the mRNA vaccines, while the rest received AstraZeneca’s DNA/AAV vaccine, which is not available in the United States. The AstraZeneca vaccine, which works similarly to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, had a lower risk of myocarditis than mRNA 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.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. – Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd American President (1933-1945). (in ‘Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies’, April 29, 1938)

“The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.” – Theodore H. White (1915-1984), American political journalist, historian and novelist, (in Time magazine, Nov. 19, 1984)

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” —A Republic, if you can keep it”. – Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), American inventor and U.S. Founding Father. (An answer to a lady’s question at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787)

Poll after poll indicates very deep political divisions among Americans, with indications that such divisions are deepening, and even widening as a consequence of the the pandemic. Indeed, according to the most recent NPR/Ipsos poll, seven in ten Americans believe the country is in crisis and is at risk of failing.

Why so much pessimism and such disintegration?

Major shifts in domestic policies over the last 40 years

Over the last four decades, there have been two important structural shifts in the U.S. that have profoundly changed the functioning of its political and social systems in a most negative way.

The first was the decision by the Reagan administration (1981-1989) to open American airwaves to extremist political groups. Indeed, in 1986, the Reagan administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FFC) abolished the 1949 Fairness Doctrine rule in licensing the airwaves to radio and television operators. That policy required the  holders of broadcast licenses both to “present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.” The policy was formerly repealed in 1987.

Secondly, on January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made a controversial decision regarding the role of money in politics. Indeed, the court issued a 5-4 decision in favor of a plaintiff, Citizens United, which struck down restrictions on the amounts of money spent in the political arena by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations, by declaring that “money is speech”, which could not be regulated under the First Amendment.

That 2010 Supreme Court decision was an important break with the past, because it reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions, and it has enabled corporations and other special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money in American elections.

To the traditional rule of “one person, one vote”, expressing the principle that citizens should have equal representation in voting, the U.S. Supreme Court has, in fact, added the rule of “one dollar-one voice” for corporations, nonprofit organizations and labor unions. The more dollars an outfit has, the stronger is its political voice and its political influence. As a consequence, this has moved the American electoral system closer to a de facto plutocracy and power politics for the super-rich and special interests. As former president Jimmy Carter (1924- ) said in 2015, the United States is now “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery”.

These two influential decisions, in 1986 and in 2010—coupled with friendly fiscal measures by the U.S. government and an ultra-loose monetary policy pursued by the Fed in the aftermath of the 2007-08 financial crisis and during the 2020-22 pandemic—have been instrumental in entrenching the money oligarchy and the special interests of the ultra-rich in the United States. Their increased wealth has given them a dominant control over the political propaganda machine (print and electronic media), over the electoral process and the overall functioning of public institutions.

Income and wealth inequalities are high and increasing in the U.S.

Income and wealth inequalities in the United States are presently more severely skewed in favor of upper-income Americans than over the last 50 years, while the U.S. middle class, where a clear majority of Americans used to belong, is shrinking. For instance, according to the Pew Research Center analysis, the relative share of U.S. aggregate income of American adults in the middle class fell from 62 percent in 1970 to 43 percent in 2018—a significant drop. During the same period, the share of upper-income Americans rose from 29 percent in 1970 to 48 percent in 2018. Even the share of lower income Americans has fallen from 10 percent to 9 percent.

The shifts in U.S. aggregate wealth among upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families have been even more pronounced than income inequality and are growing since the early ’80s.

For example, also from Pew Research, the share of American wealth held by upper-income families was 75 percent in 1983, but surged to 87 percent in 2016. Middle-income families and lower-income families saw their share of U.S. wealth decline. The former’s share fell from 22.3 percent in 1983 to 11.8 percent in 2016, while the latter saw their share of wealth fall from 2.7 percent in 1983 to 1.2 percent in 2016.

Many factors can explain such a significant shift in the relative shares of income and wealth over the last half-century, in the United States, but also in the most advanced economies in Europe, in Canada and in Australia, in a less profound way.

The most relevant are:

The process of rapid technological changes, deregulation and the rise of new industries have produced a profound transformation in the way communications and information in general are being transmitted almost instantaneously, through a proliferation of television and radio networks and computer networks.

In this new context, unscrupulous media won’t hesitate to suppress information and offer superficial or biased analyses, going as far as to generate disinformationand fake news, where facts are denied and lies glorified. For this purpose, they can resort to psychological manipulation through the propaganda technique of the ‘Big Lie‘. In so doing, they can profoundly influence the masses in a chosen direction. This has opened the gates to demagoguery.

The advent of social media, for instance, was made possible by the Internet, with the support of ever more powerful microprocessors, and by interconnected computer networks. This is the technology that has allowed for the creation of numerous social communication platforms (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and which have generated enormous personal wealth for some individuals.

The development of a more globalized economy has also transferred political power in favor of multinational corporations and banks, at the expense of national governments. Indeed, in the mid-1990s, there was an acceleration of economic and financial globalization, when low cost communication networks intensified the international movements not only of goods and services through cross-border trade, but also of financial capital and direct investment, work and technology, from high wage countries to lower wage economies.

Also, in many advanced economies, there was a relative institutional decline of labor unions, and this played a role in widening the gap between more skilled and less skilled workers and in enlarging the gap between the rich and poor.

Governments have also played an important role in exacerbating income and wealth disparities through fiscal policies, which lowered taxes on high incomes and transferred subsidies and grants to the wealthy. This has also been the case with monetary policies, which have created financial bubbles in the real estate markets and in the stock market, thus favoring the wealthiest among owners.

One must also add the policies of mass immigration pursued by certain governments, which have had a disproportionate negative impact on low-wage earners, especially when such policies increase the competition between less skilled workers.

It is not surprising that all these important technological and economic transformations, and the concomitant shifts in income and wealth disparities, have created political and social resentment among many low-income earners. They strongly resent being pitted against low-wage earners in less developed countries through free trade and more imports of labor-intensive goods, and, at home, through mass immigration. For these workers, it’s a double whammy.

A substantial part of the current divisiveness and the refusal to compromise observed in the U.S. can be traced back to this increasing trend toward income and wealth inequalities between high income earners and low income earners.

Violence and civil tensions are on the rise in the U.S.

Money and guns seem to be the modern gods of America. [N.B.: In June 2018, a Small Arms Survey estimated that there were 393.3 million guns, some military guns, in civilian hands in the United States, i.e. 120.5 guns per 100 inhabitants.]

This could explain why violence of Americans against other Americans seems to be so deadly, and while this is increasing and even encouraged in some quarters. In only one year, in 2020, there were some 43,000 people killed by firearms in the United States, an average of over 100 deaths per day.

Politically, the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, on January 6, 2021, failed in its objective of reversing the democratic results of the November 3rd 2020 election. However, evidence mounts that such a full-fledged and seditions attempted coup d’état had been well organized and planned in advance.

If so, this is likely to be a harbinger of unsavory things to come for the United States. About one third of Americans now think that violence against the government can be justified. Some observers are not even excluding a possible new civil war. They are troubled by the fact that the Pentagon pays to broadcast the conspiracy-prone Fox News network to its 800 bases around the world.

Domestically, some instances of economic anarchy have occurred in the San Francisco Bay area, where organized mobs have been charging and looting stores. It would not be a surprise to see such a phenomenon spreading to other large American cities, especially if a serious economic recession were to follow the current financial excesses.

Conclusion

In matters of politics and social affairs, wisdom calls for ruling at the center in order to unite rather than divide. Governing for extremist interests, either left or right, only encourages the fragmentation of a nation.

Currently, several indicators show that the United States has entered a phase of internal self-destruction, due to a series of political, economic and technological factors, and because of all the disruptions that ensue, some of which have been exacerbated by the on-going pandemic.

If the United States were to continue on the same path of extreme political divisiveness, social disintegration, hatred between groups and dangerous economic inequalities, this could have profound consequences for itself and for its democracy, of course, but also for the entire world.

The end result of it all could be more moral decline, more political extremism and gridlock, more costly conflicts abroad and more violence at home. This does not bode well for the future.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book , in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) 

Featured image is from Savvapanf Photo/Shutterstock

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 31 , 2021

Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 31 , 2021

“The Numbers Killed by these Vaccines is Much Worse than What We Thought”. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Mike Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 2 , 2022

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

Dr. Roxana Bruno, January 6 , 2022

Renowned Virologist Warns of ‘Collapse of Our Health System’ Due to Complications from COVID Vaccines

Patrick Delaney, December 7 , 2021

Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself

Dr. Ariyana Love, December 5 , 2021

Video: Ex-Pfizer Chief Scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon: Mass Murder with Vaccine Passports/Top Up Vaccines

Dr. Mike Yeadon, December 28 , 2021

The Prevailing Corona Nonsense Narrative

Dr. Thomas Binder, December 25 , 2021

ODMS: “Oxygen Deprivation Mask Syndrome” Now Sweeping Across the Globe

S.D. Wells, January 2 , 2022

The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

David John Sorensen, December 6 , 2021

Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS): ‘We Should Anticipate Seeing this Immune Erosion More Widely’

Frontline Doctors, December 9 , 2021

Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, December 12 , 2021

US Pilot Deaths increase by 1,750% after Covid Vaccine Rollout

Lance Johnson, December 25 , 2021

“Is the Virus Fictitious”? Laboratories in US Can’t Find COVID-19 in One of 1,500 Positive Tests

Xander Nieuws, December 16 , 2021

Video: Graphene Hydroxide in the mRNA Vaccine Vial: Assassination of Dr. Andreas Noack

Andreas Noack, December 29 , 2021

Big Pharma, Gates, Fauci, UK Officials Accused of Crimes against Humanity in Complaint to International court

Emily Mangiaracina, December 25 , 2021

Fake Science, Invalid Data: There is No Such Thing as a “Confirmed Covid-19 Case”. There is No Pandemic

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 22 , 2021

Video: “Imagine All The People”: The Covid-19 Omicron Christmas and New Year Lockdown

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 2 , 2022

Will the Federal Reserve Crash Global Financial Markets As a Means to Implementing Their “Great Reset”?

F. William Engdahl, December 28 , 2021

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 29 , 2021

Uncovering the Corona Narrative: Was Everything Carefully Planned? Analysis by Ernst Wolff

By Ernst Wolff, January 06, 2022

The current situation we find ourselves in is unique in the history of mankind. Never before has the whole world been thrown under the rule of this type of coercive regime as we are experiencing now. And never have so many measures been taken which at first glance appears so unintelligible, partly so nonsensical, and in many cases, so contradictory.

Narrative and Reality of the Libyan Crisis

By Manlio Dinucci, January 06, 2022

NATO expresses concern over the crisis in Libya, which “has direct implications for regional stability and the security of all Allies.” It therefore assures that it “remains committed to providing Libya with defense and security advice”.

The Identity of the Virus: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification.

By Christine Massey, January 06, 2022

While the Chinese authorities announced TWO  YEARS AGO on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus” no details were provided. Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.

Living in Epoch-Defining Times: Food, Agriculture and the New World Order

By Colin Todhunter, January 06, 2022

Farmerless farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented genetically engineered seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food.

The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? “A Rapid General Awakening”?

By Peter Koenig, January 06, 2022

Early indications are that the tide may be turning, that “peak-covid tyranny” may have been reached. Going into 2022 under these new apparent signs could mean a rapid general awakening, to the point of reaching a critical mass of people who start doubting the going billion-dollar propagated narrative. That would be good. It’s never too late.

Gaslighting from the WHO

By Steve Kirsch, January 06, 2022

On November 23, 2021, the WHO did a Facebook post claiming the vaccines side-effects are mild. You’d never guess that from the 45,000 comments they received–all negative.

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

By Dr. Roxana Bruno, Dr. Peter McCullough, and et al., January 06, 2022

A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts has released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines and are now calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programs. We urge you to read and share this damning report.

Radioactive Contamination: Japan Plans to Dump Water from Fukushima Plant into the Pacific Ocean

By Mong Palatino and Nevin Thompson, January 06, 2022

People in coastal communities in Japan, joined by voices from around the world, denounced a new governmental plan to dump contaminated water from the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean.

“Fabricated War on Terrorism”: Pentagon Drone Attacks Killed Many Innocent People with Impunity

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 06, 2022

A frontpage New York Times Magazine report on Sunday January 2 revealed in chilling details the systematic targeting of peoples in territories where the United States government had declared a frontline battlefield against its fabricated “war on terrorism.”

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 06, 2022

If the public had been informed and reassured that Covid is  (according to the WHO definition) “Similar to Seasonal Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat. The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Global Research brings to the attention our readers the speech of  Zivadin Jovanovic, published by Current Concerns.

The speech entitled 60 years after the Belgrade, Non-Aligned Movement conference: A movement for non-alignment is still necessary today was held at the Forum “NAM Talks”, The Museum of African Arts, September 2nd, 2021.

You can read the article by clicking the image below.

 

*

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

Featured image: The member- (dark blue) und the observer states (light blue) of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). (graphic wikipedia.org/Current Concerns)

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A frontpage New York Times Magazine report on Sunday January 2 revealed in chilling details the systematic targeting of peoples in territories where the United States government had declared a frontline battlefield against its fabricated “war on terrorism.”

In fact, the “war on terrorism” was a calculated efforts to enhance and secure the status of the U.S. as the dominant imperialist country in the world.

The use of drones has become a major weapon in the war arsenal of the Pentagon since the usage of this long-range ordnance minimizes U.S. casualties. The less injuries and deaths reported by the corporate and western government-controlled media outlets, the more the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can attempt to build support for aggressive military actions against perceived enemies.

In justifying the use of drone warfare, the Pentagon and its allies continue to say that civilians unconnected with the so-called “terrorists” or “jihadists” are never injured or killed. Nonetheless, the New York Times reports and in years prior, the revelations from WikiLeaks, exposed these genocidal war crimes for the world to see.

With the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 and the refusal to fully exit Iraq and Syria, the White House, Pentagon and State Department are looking for additional avenues to assert its military and economic prowess amid a rapidly shifting international situation. Although tensions are escalating between Washington and the governments of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation, among others in Latin America and Africa, the political status of the current administration of President Joe Biden would be further comprised in the event of a major geo-political conflict in Eastern Europe, the Asia-Pacific or South America and the Caribbean.

Obviously losing influence around the world, the Biden administration has issued threats against Beijing and Moscow. They have accused China of planning to retake Taiwan and Russia of positioning itself militarily to intervene in neighboring Ukraine. These allegations are baseless sense it is the U.S. which has sought to minimize and destabilize the governments in Beijing and Moscow. Holding a “Democracy Summit” while ignoring large and significant states such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc., can only fuel international tensions.

The New York Times Magazine article written by Azmat Khan with photos from Ivor Prickett says:

“The Times obtained more than 1,300 confidential Pentagon assessments of allegations of civilian casualties in the American-led air war in the Middle East, between September 2014 and January 2018, during the height of the war against the Islamic State. Based on those documents, The Times recently reported patterns of failed intelligence, decision-making and execution behind deadly airstrikes. These documents detail the criteria and rationales for how the Pentagon chose to classify civilian casualty allegations as either credible or noncredible.”

Although these documents only cover a period of four years during the war against the so-called “Islamic State” in Iraq and northern Syria, the drone and other targeted bomb attacks on people within these two countries and neighboring nations such as Yemen, have been going on since the post-2001 intervention in Afghanistan. Even prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the utilization of targeted assassinations through bombings has been standard practice of U.S. imperialism and its allies.

Khan does deal with the impact of the air war in Afghanistan as well. Many innocent civilians lost their lives as a result of the purported failure of the Pentagon to properly target its designated enemies within ISIS, the Taliban and other organizations. The Pentagon’s own internal investigations and assessments reinforced the disregard for human life in the “war on terrorism.”

Moreover, the “Islamist” groupings from al-Qaeda to ISIS and its affiliates, have their origins in the wars waged by the Pentagon and NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. These organizations have been used by the U.S. to overthrow states in Africa and Asia which represented independence from the western imperialist policies. At the same time, the very existence of al-Qaeda and ISIS and their being labelled as “terrorists”, provides a rationale for the continued deployment of U.S. military forces and the launching of drone attacks.

Even with these contradictory narratives in place, the failure to understand the geography of these countries and the predominant languages which are spoken, contributed immensely to the deaths and injuries of noncombatants. The New York Times reports on drone attacks reveals that the wrong areas, towns and villages were struck while there was no thorough investigation of these errors where casualties occurred.

Khan notes in the same NYT Magazine report that: “In some assessments, the Pentagon simply confused towns with the same or similar names and dismissed the claims, the documents show, as happened with a reported airstrike on a Syrian town in March 2017. Several social media posts said that the strike had hit a neighborhood in Maskana, part of Aleppo Province in Syria, killing at least eight people. An internal Pentagon team flagged the claim for further review. The documents show that assessors zeroed in on Maskana, but it was the wrong one. There is a town with the same name in Homs, a different province of Syria. The reviewers were unable to find correlating airstrikes, and the allegation was dismissed.”

These facts require an independent investigation into the war crimes and the punishment of those responsible. However, the policy of military impunity seems to be thoroughly ingrained into the policies of the Pentagon.

Those Who Exposed War Crimes Should Be Exonerated

What is often overlooked in the period between the beginning of the first Iraq war in 1991 and continuing through the invasions of Afghanistan (2001), the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the destruction of Libya (2011) and the continuing destabilization efforts against Syria (2011-present), is that significant resistance to these genocidal wars took place outside and inside the military.

Some of the most well-known people who exposed these criminal acts are Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden, a private contractor with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Chelsea Manning, a former soldier accused of sharing military secrets with WikiLeaks. Snowden was driven into exile in Russia, Manning was court martialed under the Espionage Act and served seven years in U.S. military prisons, while Assange is facing extradition to the U.S. to stand trial.

There is no way that Assange can have a fair trial in the U.S. since both the Democratic and Republican parties are implicated in these war crimes which were exposed by WikiLeaks. Since the crimes of the Pentagon have long been exposed and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan illustrated the futility of the occupations, Assange, Snowden and Manning should be pardoned for their work.

Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years (2012-2019) until there was a right-wing change of government which ousted him from the building. He was arrested by the British authorities while the U.S. heightened its efforts to have him extradited to stand trial for supposedly hacking into State Department and Defense Department files. A lower court in Britain held up the extradition due to mental health concerns expressed through the lawyers for Assange. Nonetheless, the British High Court overturned the decision under the guise that the U.S. has given guarantees that Assange would be treated fairly and not placed in heavily restricted custody.

In a report published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on the High Court ruling it emphasizes that:

“If convicted in the U.S., Mr. Assange, 50, faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail, his lawyers have said. However, the U.S. government said the sentence was more likely to be between four and six years. Mr. Assange faces an 18-count indictment from the U.S. government, accusing him of conspiring to hack into U.S. military databases to acquire sensitive secret information relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was then published on the Wikileaks website. He says the information exposed abuses by the U.S. military. But U.S. prosecutors say the leaks of classified material endangered lives, and so the U.S. sought his extradition from the UK.”

This argument that the exposure of war crimes cost lives is absurd. It was not Assange that carried out drone attacks and other bombing operations against innocent civilians and journalists. The lives were taken by the Pentagon based upon imperialist designs to control large swaths of territory in Central, South and West Asia along with Africa. It was the Pentagon war planes directed by high-ranking military officials, intelligence operatives and politicians that killed and maimed millions over the last two-to-three decades.

In addition to the mass killings, tens of millions more have been internally displaced and turned into refugees. The political, economic and military institutions of the U.S. and NATO countries are the ones that require prosecution, imprisonment and dismantlement in order for corrective justice to be achieved.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Early indications are that the tide may be turning, that “peak-covid tyranny” may have been reached. Going into 2022 under these new apparent signs could mean a rapid general awakening, to the point of reaching a critical mass of people who start doubting the going billion-dollar propagated narrative. That would be good. It’s never too late.

Though a lot of damage, health-wise, socially as well as economically has already been done, but a lot more could be done – and is, in fact, planned – through the UN Agenda 2030. We must stop this diabolical agenda.

The forced “vaccination” programs, throughout Europe, and strangely, to a lesser degree in the US, where apparently US states have more authority and autonomy than have European Union (EU) member countries, are creating enormous physical (like in diseases caused by the vaxxes), psychological and social harm.

Yes, you understood correctly, in Europe, the European Union (EU), entire so-called sovereign nations, are more subjected to tyrannical dictatorships than are US states, despite a dictatorial US President, who requests that every US citizen be “vaccinated” or else. His words are blown in the wind, when it comes to US State autonomy. Fortunately. We can just dream of such leadership in European nations. There ain’t. They are all bought, coerced or threatened into submission.

For example, US States do not accept QR-coded vaccine passports. The coercion to vaccination varies, but in most states, there is no forced vaccination. The most “liberal” states as far as vaxxes go, are Texas and Florida, where very few restrictions apply, if any. Many “rules” are voluntary and not imposed.

Japan Places Myocarditis Warning on ‘Vaccines’, Requires Informed Consent

The Government of Japan requests that myocarditis warnings are put on vaccines, and that vaccination may only take place with informed consent. Vaccination is basically voluntary and at that, people have to be told about the risks they are taking, by accepting the jab – see this.

Indeed, immediate cardiac arrest, or myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, a direct result of the mRNA – “vaxx”, that could lead to lingering heart problems, as well as death. This has already happened in thousands of cases as a result of mRNA unproven gene-modifying experimental injections. See Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (16 min. video).

Click here to watch the video.

These efforts towards informed consent from Japan’s health authority are in stark contrast to the dictatorial and coercive measures taken by other countries to force citizens into taking the injection, downplaying and outright lying about potentially deadly side effects, as well as discouraging proper adverse event reporting.

In fact, Japan breaks ranks with the rest of the world.

Doctors worldwide have echoed Japan’s health authority warnings about the experimental gene-therapies – “vaccination” is a stark misnomer – side effects. However, this kind of proper informed consent has cost many doctors in western nations their licenses to practice medicine. The government has accused these doctors of spreading ‘vaccine hesitancy.’ They have threatened them to either conform to the current narrative or “else”. The” else” may include the worst threats imaginable.

Additionally, Japan is not only emphasizing informed consent, but is respecting bodily autonomy. Until the appearance of the coronavirus “pandemic”, the concept of “informed consent” was considered sacred to healthcare professionals in the West.

*

And here – just in – BREAKING news: In Israel they just discovered the latest sibling in the corona family. It’s called “Flurona”, a hybrid of flu and Covid. Very, very infectious. I kid you not. Health workers are just being forced into their 4^th Covid jab (The Times of Israel) See this.

In the same train of thoughts and of equally powerful breaking news: In France they discovered the latest brand of the corona family “variants”, called “IHU”, which is more infectious than Omicron and spreads even faster – and, of course, current vaccines are likely to be worthless against IHU. So, what’s next? They are still debating on how to confront and fight this latest Covid-19 strain. See this French Health News.

One would think with so much “funny” BREAKING Covid information appearing at once, juxtaposing the real news of Japan’s dismantling obligatory Covid vaccination for their deadly “side effects”, or rather potentially deadly consequences, it would be a wake-up call for the still sleep-walking part of the population. One would hope. Let’s hope it’s more than hope.

*

In a “Final Warning to Humanity”, Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, talks about myriad willful crimes against humanity by Pfizer, most of which are applicable to some extent to all mRNA vaxx-manufacturers. See this shocking video (54 min).

In addition, there is Pfizer’s scandalous confidential “Killer Report”. Within about 2 ½ months after vaxxing began (mid-December 2020), “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths, allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.” See this.

*

In Romania, the Police Protests with the People

In Romania, the police will not enforce the Government’s covid rules, and they, the police, march en masse with the protesters – see video below. Should this make history, granted, it so far hasn’t, then the Covid lie would soon be dismantled and over.

The only recourse left for governments would then be calling in the army. This might become problematic for many members of the army, as in most so-called democracies, the army takes an oath not to fight against its compatriots, the people of the very country they were recruited to defend.

One such country that has abandoned all principles of democratic and civil freedom is Australia, where the army forcibly throws Covid-exposed, or suspected Covid-exposed people (like Australians returning from abroad) into quarantine camps; and where the chief medical officer warns the unvaccinated, “Your life will be miserable”.

According to this CBS report, Australia has seized to be a free country (7 min. video).

Then there is the New Zealand dictator, Jacinda Ardern, who says “there is no end point to Covid vaccines” – see this. She calls out to “her” citizens, “Those who were vaccinated six months ago, we really need them to come back or we need to go to them.” It is not clear what she plans to do with those who do not come back for their next shot. The worst is to be expected as she says there is no end in sight for the covid vaccine program.

Revealing News

Now comes the whammy, revealing news. You might be surprised to hear – or not – that many, if not all, of the most tyrannical leaders (sic), took Klaus Schab’s (WEF) intensive course for “Young Global Leaders”. Among them are New Zealand’s Ms. Ardern; The Australian Prime Minister and several of Australian’s Provincial Governors; Canada’s Mr. Justin Trudeau; France’s Mr. Emmanuel Macron, Costa Rica’s President Carlos Alvarado Quesada; Madame Angela Merkel – and many more – just to give you a taste, so you may judge for yourself, who is at least part of the Big Orchestraters of this deadly game of never heard-of tyranny in recent history. See this.

Ms. Ursual von der Leyen, President of the unelected European Commission is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.

In Germany, protests against “Covid measures”, especially coerced vaccination, over the past 2 weeks have covered most major cities, starting peacefully, then turning violent, mostly reacting to violent police interference. Hundreds of thousands – if not millions – took to the streets throughout Germany over the past few weeks. There is no end in sight as long as the German Government insists on forced vaccination, and the QR-coded Covid Pass.

Why is the QR-coded Covid pass so evil? Because everything you ever do, wherever you go and you have to show your Covid pass, grocery shopping, to the hairdresser, your entire health or disease record, or god-forbid, you have to check-into a hospital or see your medical doctor – all, and more, will be recorded on your QR-code. And you don’t know it. It’s centrally government controlled.

It’s no longer a secret to the people of Germany, that thousands and thousands of Germans have died as a result of the experimental mRNA injection, and tens of thousands were injured, many of them with lasting hindrances, who will live miserable rest of their lives and may eventually also die premature deaths.

In Austria, the first country to introduce compulsory forced vaccination – and Covid passes (meaning, vaccination certificates) for everybody, protests also abound – endlessly. And as people’s protests do not relent, those who have been believing and following the Covid narrative and propaganda, may gradually wake up to a reality they didn’t want to accept. But once this reality is laid open for everyone to see, there is no way back.

It’s like a groundswell of understanding what is going on, what has been going on over the past two years, and especially since the so-called vaxx-programs started throughout the western world in mid-December 2020. Once this groundswell of understanding of “waking up”, reaches a critical mass, there is no turning back.

That’s when the tide turns. We are not quite there yet, and it may take a while until the enemy has exhausted all its propaganda and coercive weaponry – but the light at the end of the tunnel is visible.

One might wonder, what will happen to all those world leaders, and to all those who have commandeered the world leaders to commit these unspeakable crimes? Are they preparing a spaceship – or have they already prepared one with a several thousand men / women capacity, to fly the murderers to a distant planet? Is this one of Elon Musk’s secret plans? It may sound like fantasy, but perhaps it is not so far-fetched.

Just think of the recent (2021) star-studded movie, “Don’t Look Up”. An outstanding parody of failed leadership, not unlike our current (western) world experience. Over the past ten/twenty years we have noticed that what looks like laughable fantasy, suddenly has become reality – in no time. We are entering this new epoch, where tomorrow may become today in a flicker.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from Hal Turner Radio Show

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

On November 23, 2021, the WHO did a Facebook post claiming the vaccines side-effects are mild. You’d never guess that from the 45,000 comments they received–all negative.

Here’s the WHO Facebook post of November 23, 2021:

Here are a few of the comments:

• Gerald Rogers  (883 likes)This is what propaganda looks like… and look at
  This is what propaganda looks like… and look at the 8,500 comments of people who share story after story after story of serious to lethal side effects! 8,500 people so far speaking up on one post, and hardly a single comment praising the shot.

  The World Health Organization, does not promote “health”. Neither does the CDC, the government or most health care systems.

  If their agenda was for us to be healthy they would be encouraging exercise, good food, fresh air and natural herbs.

  I get that for “most people” the jab doesn’t affect them much.

  But here’s the other Fact. 99.8% of people that get Covid have mild to none side effects long term, plus they have what the body is built for. Natural immunity.

  And a lot of us, have strong immune systems because we focus on real “health” so our bodies never get it.

  For those who love TRUTH and FREEDOM keep asking the question “WHY”?

  – -Why did The pharmaceutical companies start developing these shots for Covid-19 before the virus was released?

  – why has Pfizer locked up all the research and data for about 50 years?

  – Why has the government made it impossible for anyone who was seriously hurt or affected to sue or legally hold accountable these companies?

  – Why have all the groups on FB of people gathering to share their experiences and their horror stories after the shot been shut down and banned?

  – Why have countries like Australia gone militant enforcing mandates and violate the choice and freedom of its citizens?

  – Why does the government legally require companies to force their employees to comply and get the shot, or lose their jobs and benefits?

  – Why are there places in the country that even the movie theaters and restaurants have been required to join the enforcers of these stupid mandates?

  There are a lot more questions to keep asking.

  We live in crazy and unprecedented times.

  I want to reiterate this…

  I’m NOT anti-vax

  I’m anti-propaganda, anti-manipulation and anti-deceit and harmful practices

  I’m PRO health. Pro-freedom. Pro-responsible decision making.

  For those that choose to get it, I celebrate and honor your choice and hope that you stay healthy and strong.

  And if you’re like me, that chooses to take responsibility for my own health, then let’s keep letting our voices be heard so they know WE WILL NOT COMPLY and have our rights abused.

• Nicole De Graff (6,000 likes; 177 replies)Long term heart damage, paralysis, blood clots and death are not mild. May God bring swift Justice to the perpetrators of this evil.
• Leona Burton (7,100 likes; 558 replies)The people have spoken and they’re not happy.

  I hope these companies aren’t spending their profits? I see big huge lawsuits before too long!

• ….

I think you get the picture. Check out the post and scroll to a random comment or two.

And if you know how to view it in a wider column than this, let me know in the comments. It is such a horrible user interface.

*

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

People in coastal communities in Japan, joined by voices from around the world, denounced a new governmental plan to dump contaminated water from the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean. Local communities and other nations in the Pacific Ocean fear the dumping will poison the environment and cripple local fishing and tourism industries that have struggled to recover from the March 2011 nuclear accident on Japan’s northeast coast for over a decade.

According to a government plan released on December 28, 2021, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will start releasing 1 million metric tonnes of radioactive water from the Fukushima plant into the Pacific Ocean in 2023. The plan, which is still being developed over the coming months, states that an undersea tunnel will be built to pump the water out to the sea. Funds have also been reserved to compensate local fishing and tourism industries for potential “reputational damage.”

In March 2011 an earthquake and tsunami caused three nuclear reactors operated by TEPCO in Fukushima to meltdown. Over the years, groundwater flowing through the plants was contaminated with radioactive content. In order to prevent this water from reaching the ocean, it was pumped from the reactor buildings into large tanks that now dominate the reactor installation.

A Screenshot from the YouTube video of the Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World featuring Japanese mothers from the townships of Okuma and Futaba protesting the plan to dump radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.

As of December 2021, at least 1 million tonnes of contaminated water are stored in the tanks inside the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

While highly radioactive contaminants are removed, the stored water that the Japanese government is planning to pump out to sea still contains significant amounts of tritium, a radioactive element that some experts say is harmless when diluted in seawater.

The Japanese government’s plan to pump the contaminated water has been in the works since 2020. Greenpeace said in April 2021 that it collected 183,000 signatures opposing the plan to discharge water from the Fukushima plant.

Also in April 2021, South Korean civil society groups issued a statement condemning TEPCO’s plan, noting, “even if diluted the total amount of radioactive material thrown into the sea remains unchanged. If the radioactive wastewater is discharged, it will be an irrevocable disaster not only for marine ecosystem but for the human.”

The issue was tackled during the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting in July 2021, and the body made the following declaration:

Forum Foreign Ministers noted the concerns surrounding the seriousness of this issue in relation to the potential threat of further nuclear contamination of our Blue Pacific and the potential adverse and transboundary impacts to the health and security of the Blue Pacific Continent, and its peoples over both the short and long term.

In November 2021, TEPCO said its radiological impact assessment showed minimal impact on the environment:

The assessment found that effects of the discharge of ALPS (Advanced Liquid Process System) treated water into the sea on the public and the environment is minimal as calculated doses were significantly less than the dose limits, dose targets, and the values specified by international organizations for each species.

TEPCO assured the public that it is continually updating its scientific studies regarding the plan to release processed water into the Pacific. But doubts remain about their reports, mostly because there still are few concrete plans about how and where the contaminated water will be dumped, making it difficult for outside observers to assess the risk.

The Pacific Collective on Nuclear Issues, which represents civil society organizations based in Oceania, refutes the veracity of these studies. It also has a message for TEPCO and the Japanese government:

The Pacific is not and must not become the dumping ground for nuclear wastes.

The Collective considers that TEPCO, and the relevant Japanese Government agencies, have wrongly prioritised convenience and costs over the short term and long term environmental and human cost of their planned actions.

Japanese residents have also consistently expressed concern about TEPCO’s plan.

Greenpeace interviewed fisherman Ono Haruo from the township of Shinchi in Fukushima, who echoed the sentiments of the local population:

Fish are finally starting to return after ten years, but if they now pour tritium into the water, no matter how much they dilute it, who’s going to buy those fish? Who wants to eat poisoned fish?

The ocean is our place of work. Can you imagine what it feels like for that to be intentionally polluted?

It’ll be 30 or 40 years before we see the effects. The causal relationship will have become unclear and it’ll be impossible to prove anything. What’s going to happen to the future of our children, our grandchildren? It’s not even clear who will take responsibility.

A group of mothers in Iwaki city, Fukushima, participated in a protest in November 2021 opposing the plan to dump contaminated water into the ocean. The townships of Okuma and Futaba, which host the stricken Fukushima Daiichi complex, have experienced almost complete depopulation over the past decade.

In spring 2022, the International Atomic Energy Agency will evaluate and report on plans has on the Fukushima water treatment, while stakeholders will continue to engage authorities about the controversial plan of TEPCO.

*

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: Water tanks holding contaminated water in front of the reactor buildings at Fukushima Daiichi. Photo Credit: Susanna Loof / IAEA. Image license: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dr Anthony Hall, Dr Valentina Capurri and Dr Angela Durante are PhDs in History discussing issues surrounding the ongoing COVID narrative, mandatory vaccinations and the state of the universities in the covid era.

*

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Farmerless farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented genetically engineered seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food. Data platforms, private equity firms, e-commerce giants and AI-controlled farming systems.

This is the future that big agritech and agribusiness envisage: a future of ‘data-driven’ and ‘climate-friendly’ agriculture that they say is essential if we are to feed a growing global population.

The transformative vision outlined above which is being promoted by the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation amounts to a power grab. Whether through all aspects of data control (soil quality, consumer preferences, weather, etc), e-commerce monopolies, corporate land ownership, seed biopiracy and patenting, synthetic lab-made food or the eradication of the public sector’s role in ensuring food security and national food sovereignty, the aim is for a relative handful of corporations to gain full control of the entire global food system.

Smallholder peasant farming is to be eradicated as the big-tech giants and agribusiness impose their  ‘disruptive’ technologies.

This vision is symptomatic of a reductionist mindset fixated on a narrow yield-output paradigm that is unable or more likely unwilling to grasp an integrated social-cultural-economic-agronomic systems approach to food and agriculture that accounts for many different factors, including local/regional food security and sovereignty, diverse nutrition production per acre, water table stability and boosting rural development based on thriving local communities.

Instead, what is envisaged will lead to the further trashing of rural economies, communities and cultures. A vision that has scant regard for the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right of people to define their own food and agriculture systems.  

But is any of this necessary or inevitable?

There is no global shortage of food. Even under any plausible future population scenario, there will be no shortage as evidenced by scientist Dr Jonathan Latham in his paper The Myth of a Food Crisis (2020). Furthermore, there are tried and tested approaches to addressing the challenges humanity faces, not least agroecology.

Reshaping agrifood systems

An organic-based, agrifood system could be implemented in Europe and would allow a balanced coexistence between agriculture and the environment. This would reinforce Europe’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050, allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption and substantially reduce water pollution and toxic emissions from agriculture.

That is the message conveyed in the paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity (2020) which appeared in the journal One Earth.

The paper by Gilles Billen et al follows a long line of studies and reports which have concluded that organic agriculture is vital for guaranteeing food security, rural development, better nutrition and sustainability.

For instance, in the 2006 book The Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, Neils Halberg and his colleagues argue that there are still more than 740 million food insecure people (at least 100 million more today), the majority of whom live in the Global South. They say if a conversion to organic farming of approximately 50% of the agricultural area in the Global South were to be carried out, it would result in increased self-sufficiency and decreased net food imports to the region.

In 2007, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) noted that organic models increase cost-effectiveness and contribute to resilience in the face of climatic stress. The FAO concluded that by managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping), organic farmers use their labour and environmental factors to intensify production in a sustainable way and that organic agriculture could break the vicious circle of farmer indebtedness for proprietary agricultural inputs.

Of course, organic agriculture and agroecology are not necessarily one and the same. Whereas organic agriculture can still be part of the prevailing globalised food regime dominated by giant agrifood conglomerates, agroecology uses organic practices but is ideally rooted in the principles of localisation, food sovereignty and self-reliance.

The FAO recognises that agroecology contributes to improved food self-reliance, the revitalisation of smallholder agriculture and enhanced employment opportunities. It has argued that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population but with reduced environmental impact than conventional agriculture.

In 2012, Deputy Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Petko Draganov stated  that expanding Africa’s shift towards organic farming will have beneficial effects on the continent’s nutritional needs, the environment, farmers’ incomes, markets and employment.

A meta analysis conducted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNCTAD (2008) assessed 114 cases of organic farming in Africa. The two UN agencies concluded that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.

The 2009 report Agriculture at a Crossroads by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommended agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. It cites the largest study of ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the Global South, which analysed 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries, and found that on average crop yields increased by 79% (the study also included ‘resource conserving’ non-organic conventional approaches).

There are numerous other studies and projects which testify to the efficacy of organic farming, including those from the Rodale Institute, the Oakland Institute, the UN Green Economy Initiative, the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu, Newcastle University and Washington State University. We also need look no further than the results of organic-based farming in Malawi.

In Ethiopia, agroecology has been scaled up across the entire Tigray region, partly due to enlightened political leaders and the commitment of key institutions. But Cuba is the one country in the world that has made the biggest changes in the shortest time in moving from industrial chemical-intensive agriculture to organic farming.

Professor of Agroecology Miguel Altieri notes that, due to the difficulties Cuba experienced as a result of the fall of the USSR, it moved towards organic and agroecological techniques in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2005, per capita food production in Cuba increased by 4.2% yearly during a period when production was stagnant across the wider region.

By 2016, Cuba had 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land and producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square metre, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms supply 50 to 70% or more of all the fresh vegetables consumed in cities such as Havana and Villa Clara.

It has been calculated by Altieri and his colleague Fernando R Funes-Monzote that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency.

Serving a corporate agenda

However, global agribusiness and agritech firms continue to marginalise organic, capture public bodies and push for their chemical-intensive, high-tech approaches. Although organic farming and natural farming methods like agroecology offer genuine solutions for many of the world’s pressing problems (health, environment, employment, rural development, etc), these approaches challenge corporate interests and threaten their bottom line.

In 2014, Corporate Europe Observatory released a critical report on the European Commission over the previous five years. The report concluded that the commission had been a willing servant of a corporate agenda. It had sided with agribusiness on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and pesticides. Far from shifting Europe to a more sustainable food and agriculture system, the opposite had happened, as agribusiness and its lobbyists continued to dominate the Brussels scene.

Consumers in Europe reject GM food, but the commission had made various attempts to meet the demands from the biotech sector to allow GMOs into Europe, aided by giant food companies, such as Unilever, and the lobby group FoodDrinkEurope.

The report concluded that the commission had eagerly pursued a corporate agenda in all the areas investigated and pushed for policies in sync with the interests of big business. It had done this in the apparent belief that such interests are synonymous with the interests of society at large.

Little has changed since. In December 2021, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) noted that big agribusiness and biotech corporations are currently pushing for the European Commission to remove any labelling and safety checks for new genomic techniques. Since the beginning of their lobbying efforts (in 2018), these corporations have spent at least €36 million lobbying the European Union and have had 182 meetings with European commissioners, their cabinets and director generals: more than one meeting a week.

According to FOEE, the European Commission seems more than willing to put the lobby’s demands into a new law that would include weakened safety checks and bypass GMO labelling.

Corporate influence over key national and international bodies is nothing new. From the World Bank’s ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ and the influence of foreign retail on India’s NITI Aayog (the influential policy commission think tank of the Government of India) to the Gates Foundation’s role in opening up African agriculture to global food and agribusiness oligopolies, democratic procedures at sovereign state levels are being bypassed to impose seed monopolies and proprietary inputs on farmers and to incorporate them into a global agrifood chain dominated by powerful corporations.

But there are now also new players on the block. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others are closing in on the global agrifood sector while the likes of Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill continue to cement their stranglehold.

The tech giants entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, etc) and those that control the flow of data and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure and food consumers. In  effect, multi-billion dollar agrifood data management markets are being created.

In India, Walmart and Amazon could end up dominating the e-retail sector. These two US companies would also own India’s key consumer and other economic data, making them the country’s digital overlords along with Google and Facebook.

The government is facilitating the dominance of giant corporations, not least through digital or e-commerce platforms. E-commerce companies not only control data about consumption but also control data on production, logistics, who needs what, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it and when it should be moved.

These platforms have the capacity to shape the entire physical economy. We are seeing the eradication of the marketplace in favour of platforms owned by global conglomerates which will control everything from production to logistics, including agriculture and farming.

The farmer will be told how much production is expected, how much rain is anticipated, what type of soil quality there is, what type of (GM) seeds and proprietary inputs are required and when the produce needs to be ready.

E-commerce platforms will become permanently embedded once artificial intelligence begins to plan and determine all of the above.

In April 2021, the Indian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Microsoft, allowing its local partner CropData to leverage a master database of farmers. The MoU seems to be part of the AgriStack policy initiative, which involves the roll out of ‘disruptive’ technologies and digital databases in the agricultural sector.

CropData will be granted access to a government database of 50 million farmers and their land records. As the database is developed, it will include farmers’ personal details, profile of land held, production data and financial details.

In addition to facilitating data harvesting and a data management market, the Indian government is trying to establish a system of ‘conclusive titling’ of all land in the country, so that ownership can be identified and land can then be valued, bought or taken away.

The plan is that, as farmers lose access to land or can be identified as legal owners, predatory global institutional investors will buy up and amalgamate holdings, facilitating the further roll out of high-input, corporate-dependent industrial agriculture.

This is an example of stakeholder-partnership capitalism, much promoted by the likes of the World Economic Forum, whereby a government facilitates the gathering of such information by a private player which can then, in this case, use the data for developing a land market (courtesy of land law changes that the government enacts) for institutional investors at the expense of smallholder farmers who will find themselves displaced.

By harvesting information – under the benign-sounding policy of data-driven agriculture – private corporations will be better placed to exploit farmers’ situations for their own ends.

Imagine a cartel of data owners, proprietary input suppliers and retail concerns at the commanding heights of the global economy, peddling toxic industrial (and lab-engineered) ‘food’ and the devastating health and environmental impacts associated with it.

As for elected representatives and sovereign state governments, their role will be highly limited to technocratic overseers of these platforms and the artificial intelligence tools that plan and determine all of the above.

But none of this is set in stone or inevitable. The farmers victory in India in getting the corporate-friendly farm laws repealed show what can be achieved, even if this is only viewed as a spanner in the works of a global machine that is relentless.

New world order

And that machine comprises what journalist Ernst Wolff calls the digital-financial complex that is now driving the globalisation-one agriculture agenda. This complex comprises many of the companies mentioned above: Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Amazon and Meta (Facebook) as well as BlackRock and Vanguard, transnational investment/asset management corporations.

These entities exert control over governments and important institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB) and the US Federal Reserve. Indeed, Wolff states that BlackRock and Vanguard have more financial assets than the ECB and the Fed combined.

To appreciate the power and influence of BlackRock and Vanguard, let us turn to the documentary Monopoly: An Overview of the Great Reset which argues that the stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi, are not really competitors, since their stock is owned by the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies and banks.

Smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies: Vanguard and Black Rock.

A 2017 Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028 together will have investments amounting to 20 trillion dollars. In other words, they will own almost everything worth owning.

The digital-financial complex wants control over all aspects of life. It wants a cashless world, to destroy bodily integrity with a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies, to control all personal data and digital money and it requires full control over everything, including food and farming.

If events over the last two years have shown us anything, it is that an unaccountable authoritarian global elite knows the type of world it wants to create, has the ability to coordinate its agenda globally and will use deception and duplicity to achieve it. And in this brave new Orwellian world where capitalist ‘liberal democracy’ has run its course, there will be no place for genuinely independent nation states or individual rights.

The independence of nation states could be further eroded by the digital-financial complex’s ‘financialisation of nature’ and its ‘green profiling’ of countries and companies. If we take the example of India, again, the Indian government has been on a relentless drive to attract inflows of foreign investment into government bonds (creating a lucrative market for global investors). It does not take much imagination to see how investors could destabilise the economy with large movements in or out of these bonds but also how India’s ‘green credentials’ could be factored in to downgrade its international credit rating.

And how could India demonstrate its green credentials and thus its ‘credit worthiness’? Perhaps by allowing herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that the GM sector misleadingly portrays as ‘climate friendly’.

As for concepts such as localisation, food sovereignty, self-reliance and participatory democracy – key tenets of agroecology ­– these are mere inconveniences to be trampled on.

Olivier De Schutter, former UN special Rapporteur on the right to food, delivered his final report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, based on an extensive review of scientific literature. He concluded that by applying agroecological principles to the design of democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and address climate variabilities and poverty challenges.

De Schutter argued that agroecological approaches could address food needs in critical regions and double food production within 10 years. However, he notes there is insufficient backing for organic-based farming which seriously hinders progress.

But it is not just a case of insufficient backing. Global agribusiness and agritech corporations have leveraged themselves into strategic positions and integral to their strategy has been attacks on organic farming as they attempt to cast it as a niche model which cannot feed the world. From the false narrative that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed a growing population to providing lavish research grants and the capture of important policy-making institutions, these firms have secured a thick legitimacy within policy making machinery.

These conglomerates regard organic approaches as a threat, especially agroecology which adheres to a non-industrial, smallholder model rooted in local independent enterprises and communities based on the principle of localisation. When people like De Schutter assert the need for a “democratically controlled” agroecology, this runs counter to the reality of large agribusiness firms, their proprietary products and their globalisation agenda based on long supply chains, market dependency, dispossession and the incorporation of farms and farmers into their agrifood regime. And as we can see, ‘democracy’ has no place in the world of the digital-financial complex.

The 2015 Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology argues for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It says that agroecology should not be co-opted to become a tool of the industrial food production model; it should be the essential alternative to it.

The declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.

According to Pat Mooney of the ETC Group, this involves developing healthy and equitable agroecological production systems, building short (community-based) supply chains and restructuring and democratising governance systems that could take 25 years to accomplish: in effect a ‘long food movement’.

We are currently living through epoch-defining changes and the struggle for the future of food and agriculture is integral to the wider struggle over the future direction of humanity. There is a pressing need to transition towards a notion of food sovereignty based on agroecological principles and the local ownership and stewardship of common resources.

*

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

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

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A group of doctors and others have penned a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration, explaining a problem that they’ve identified with the Covid-19 vaccine: Pilots are flying with unapproved medications in their bodies, in violation of FAA rules.

According to the letter signers, which include attorneys and medical doctors, the airline industry is operating in violation of Title 14 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and related federal rules, which prohibit pilots from flying with non-FDA approved agents in their bodies, such as the Covid-10 vaccines, if those substances put the general public at risk for serious injury or death. The writers distinguish between FDA-approved vaccines and those that are actually being used to reduce the danger of Covid-19.

The authors of the letter are requesting the FAA medically flag all vaccinated pilots within four weeks of the Dec. 15 letter, until those pilots undergo thorough medical reexaminations to include D-Dimer tests; which check for blood clotting; Troponin tests, which reveal heart muscle damage; and EKG and MRI tests to determine cardiac health.

The signers of the letter are recommending that all pilots who fail the tests be immediately grounded until they can get a clean bill of health.

“From this point forward, only allowing commercial aircraft to be operated by pilots who can show D-Dimer and Troponin tests – as well as cardiac MRIs, ECGs and PULS tests – at aeromedically acceptable levels, and a clean medical examination undertaken a minimum of five (5) days after each COVID-19 vaccine and after each COVID ‘booster’ shot, as a review of reporting systems such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (‘VAERS’) indicates that the current FAA wait time of two (2) days is insufficient to detect a significant number of blood clotting and myocarditis cases (which are manifesting more than 48 hours post-inoculation),” the group wrote.

“…the FDA has not approved any of the COVID-19 shots currently available in the United States. On August 23, the FDA granted BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH’s Biologics Licensing Application to distribute the Comirnaty vaccine in the United States once certain conditions are met; however, the Comirnaty vaccine is not currently available in the United States – and will not be until the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is first exhausted. See https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is currently available only under an EUA, which the FDA extended on August 23, 2021. See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download. It is also important to note that the approved vaccine, Comirnaty, cannot be said to be interchangeable with unapproved inoculations,” the letter said.

The group said it knows of pilots who have died after getting the Covid vaccine, and others who continue to suffer side effects but are afraid to report them for fear of being grounded.

Some pilots have been forced to seek medical care, such as Cody Flint, whose story is included in the letter:

“I am a 33 year old husband and father of two young boys. I am an agricultural pilot by profession, with over 10,000 flight hours. I have been very healthy my whole life, with no underlying conditions. I received my first dose of the Pfizer Covid Vaccine on February 1. Within thirty minutes, I developed a severe stabbing headache, which later became a burning sensation in the back of my neck. Two days after vaccination, I got in my airplane to do a job that would only take a few hours.

“Immediately after taking off, I knew that something was not right with me. I was starting to develop tunnel vision, and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into flying, I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears.

“Instantly, I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident – although I do not remember doing this.

“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and severe panic attacks – although I’ve never had a history of either of these – was later replaced with left and right peri-lymphatic fistulas, Eustachian tube dysfunction, and elevated intra-cranial pressure due to brain swelling. My condition continued to decline, and my doctors told me that only an adverse reaction to the vaccine or a major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.

“I’ve had six spinal taps over eight months to monitor my intra-cranial pressure, and two surgeries, eight weeks apart, to repair the fistulas. I have missed nearly an entire year of my life – and my children’s lives. Days of baseball games, playing in the backyard, and just picking up my kids to hug them have been replaced with living in a sick body, doctor’s visits, and more questions than answers. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to fly again.

“This vaccine has taken my career from me, and the future I have worked so hard to build. I’ve used all of my savings just to pay my medical bills: my family and I are on the verge of losing everything we have. I was and still am pro-science and pro-vaccine. The main issue rests squarely on the fact that the FDA, CDC and NIH refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine….“

The letter is signed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Mary Holland of the Children’s Health Defense, Dr. Ryan Cole, who was featured at the Alaska Early Treatment Summit in Anchorage; Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, M.D., Special Forces Flight Surgeon – Green Beret; Dr. Peter McCullough, M.D.;Lt. Col. Theresa Long, M.D., MPH Army Aerospace Medicine Specialist Aviation Officer Course & Mishap Training, and Leigh Taylor Dundas, Esq., Advocates for Citizens Rights.

The entire letter can be read at this link.

*

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.

Suzanne Downing had careers in business and journalism before serving as the Director of Faith and Community-based Initiatives for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and returning to Alaska to serve as speechwriter for Gov. Sean Parnell. Born on the Oregon coast, she moved to Alaska in 1969.

Featured image is from Must Read Alaska

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Insurers in Indiana and India report similar rates of non-COVID-related premature deaths. “I’m sure I’m one of many who wonder what kind of diamond mine of data the insurance companies are sitting on,” said educator and statistician Michael Crawford.

An Indiana insurance executive dropped a bombshell statistic during an end-of-year virtual news conference, reporting a “stunning” 40% increase in the death rate among 18- to 64-year-old adults compared to pre-pandemic levels.

During the same call, OneAmerica’s CEO Scott Davison also described a major uptick in both short- and long-term disability claims.

The insurance executive rated the extraordinarily high death rate as “the highest … we have seen in the history of this business,” adding the trend is “consistent across every player in that business.”

To further underscore the import of his statements, Davison said, “Just to give you an idea of how bad [40%] is, a … one-in-200 catastrophe would be a 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.”

Contrary to what the public might assume — given the media’s unremitting coverage of COVID-19— Davison reported most of the death claims listed causes of death other than COVID.

Commenting on the news, Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, wrote, “It would take something REALLY BIG to have an effect this big.”

Moreover, Kirsch said, the culprit would have to be something first introduced in 2021 — “something new … that a huge number of people would be exposed to” — such as COVID shots.

Vaccine scientist Dr. Robert Malone and statistician Jessica Rose, Ph.D., agreed that experimental COVID injections should be considered prime suspects.

Surging non-COVID-related hospital admissions

Around the country, hospitals are reporting increased admissions for serious non-COVID-related illnesses that just happen to match up to the types of adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination.

In fact, at a different Indiana news conference in December, the state’s chief medical officer reported Indiana is experiencing its highest hospitalization rate in five years.

While claiming not to have a breakdown of causes, an Indiana hospital association official noted that the majority of intensive care patients are in the hospital for illnesses and conditions having nothing to do with COVID.

In a September study described as “narrative-shattering,” Harvard, Tufts and Veterans Affairs researchers reported that approximately half of hospitalized patients “showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021” had likely been admitted “for another reason entirely.”

In Ventura County, California, which is witnessing a startling spike in non-COVID-related hospitalizations, nurse whistleblowers argue the vaccines should be one of the first explanations considered. Why else, they ask, would otherwise healthy adults be showing up in droves with brain bleeds, heart attacks, autoimmune issues and lung abnormalities?

Autopsies of individuals who died following COVID vaccination reveal shocking pathological alterations most frequently affecting the heart and lungs but also the brain and other organs.

A profitable industry that intends to remain profitable

By revenue, the U.S. has the largest insurance industry in the world, valued in 2020 at $1.28 trillion. Financial analysts deem life insurance — which represents 49% of total premiums paid — to be “one of the most profitable industries in the world.”

More than half (52%) of American adults have life insurance, including group coverage of the type underwritten by OneAmerica. The face value of life insurance policy purchases in the U.S. is $3.29 trillion.

One of the key determinants of life insurance profitability is the accurate assessment of mortality risk by actuaries, and notably, proper accounting of premature death risks.

Reports for 2020 indicate life insurers took an unexpected hit from claims associated with “COVID-19” — with an $18 billion drop in “net gains from operations” in 2020 as compared to 2019.

While no one, as of yet, is commenting on 2021 or discussing whether the life insurance industry may have underestimated the lethality of COVID vaccines, OneAmerica’s Davison did go so far as to admit that payouts related to the unprecedented 40% increase in working-age deaths will be in excess of $100 million.

To claw back those outlays, the costs “will be passed on to employers purchasing group life insurance policies, who will have to pay higher premiums,” Davison said.

Far from being willing to contemplate the elephant in the room, the Indiana insurance executive indicated he plans to require all OneAmerica employees to get vaccinated.

Somewhat counterintuitively, the industry’s ability to pass along costs for elevated claims activity by raising premiums now has analysts rosily predicting the insurance industry is “buckled up to accelerate growth in 2022.”

Insurers also anticipate rising demand due to “businesses and consumers becom[ing] more risk-conscious coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and “new levels of awareness” about the importance of disability insurance.

On the consumer side of the fence, the picture is far less rosy — for both the unvaccinated and vaccinated.

For example, New York State Assemblyman Patrick Burke (D-Buffalo) proposed punitive legislation that would permit insurers to deny COVID-related treatment coverage for individuals who choose not to get vaccinated.

Adding insult to injury, there are also reports of insurance companies imposing premium increases on employers in counties with low vaccination rates.

Meanwhile, many of those injured by COVID vaccines report denials of health and disability insurance coverage.

In December 2020, on the cusp of the vaccine rollout, a spokesman for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) pledged to beef up claims-handling capacity for the government’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) in anticipation of a “potential influx of COVID-19 claims.”

The “black hole” program, ostensibly available to dispense compensation for COVID vaccine injuries, is notoriously stingy and has a one-year statute of limitations. Thus far, CICP has only compensated one of the thousands of COVID-vaccine-related claims submitted.

40% — India, too, not just Indiana

For the time being, at least, other U.S. insurers do not appear to be sharing data or observations about increased non-COVID hospitalization and death claims.

But the press in India is openly discussing the same unprecedented trends as Indiana.

The Times of India reported in late October that health insurers are seeing a “huge surge in non-COVID claims.” Again citing the magic number of 40%, the head of interventional cardiology at a Mumbai hospital noted a 40% increase in heart problems — acute coronary syndrome, sudden heart attacks and cardiac arrest — over the previous six to eight months

The cardiologist also observed that “even patients who have been stable for years are coming in with acute heart emergencies.”

That same month, the New Indian Express reported on widespread concern about the growing prevalence of heart attacks in those under age 45. Although these young adults — including a number of celebrities — typically have “no conventional risk factors,” Indian heart doctors are blaming the mysterious rise in heart attacks on “lifestyle choices.”

Around the same time in late December that OneAmerica’s Davison shared his remarks, Fortune India reported on data from the nation’s Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority showing a 41% increase (there’s that number again) in death claims in fiscal year 2021. In comparison, death claims rose by 11% in fiscal year 2020.

Describing the increase in non-COVID-19 deaths, a life insurance executive suggested the industry might end up posting “a 200-300% increase in claims” for 2021. For now, however, 18 of the 24 life insurance companies operating in India in 2020-21 are reporting profits.

India launched the “world’s biggest” COVID vaccination drive in January 2021, primarily administering AstraZeneca’s vaccine (manufactured by India’s Serum Institute under the brand name Covishield) and Covaxin, an India-developed vaccine perceived as having garnered a “hasty” approval and which resulted in one acknowledged death during clinical trials.

And, to get 2022 off to an ambitious start, India just administered Covaxin to more than 3.8 million teenagers (ages 15-18) in the span of a single day. With 120 million youngsters between ages 15 and 19, India has the largest adolescent population in the world, which will remain the target of COVID vaccination efforts.

Meanwhile, with no long-term safety data and VAERS reports of COVID vaccine injuries passing the one million mark, including tens of thousands of adverse events reported for 5- to 17-year-olds, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just okayed Pfizer booster shots for American teens ages 12 and up.

Ethical doctors have been issuing urgent warnings about the dangers of COVID vaccines for children and adolescents for months — but the FDA’s and CDC’s paid stooges continue to ignore them.

Hidden treasure trove of data?

Academic researchers have long acknowledged the utility of insurance claims data for predicting trends. Describing India’s 24 life insurance companies, one writer noted the “millions of rows of data” generated by 310 million policies, stating “you can imagine the humongous amount of data generated by insurance companies in India and [the] world over.”

Likewise, Substack writer and mathematician Matthew Crawford pondered the implications of Davison’s admissions, commenting, “I’m sure I’m one of many who wonder what kind of diamond mine of data the insurance companies are sitting on.”

Recent reports indicate U.S. life expectancy declined in 2020 by an unprecedented 1.8 years, and Davison’s remarks suggest we could see even worse when 2021 is tallied up.

At a 2017 symposium of actuaries, a presenter noted that understanding shifts in the structure of mortality requires going beyond variables such as life expectancy to look at the main drivers of the change and the age ranges affected.

In a study published a few months ago, researchers tackled that type of analysis, finding the dramatic decline in U.S. life expectancy was not only due to “direct” effects of COVID but also “indirect” effects (for example, from restrictive policies).

The researchers emphasized the 15 to 44 age group was most strongly impacted by indirect effects.

Clearly, numerous factors could be contributing to premature deaths in working-age adults — including suicide, overdoses and deferred care related to lockdowns.

However, the pressing question raised by life insurer Davison’s disclosures is whether insurance companies will reveal the extent to which the COVID injections are also having a fatal impact.

*

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

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Are government regulators minimizing the availability of COVID vaccine options in the United States in order to protect our health, or are there many other factors in play — that are completely unrelated to our health — being considered behind the curtain? 

The U.S. COVID-19 vaccine market has been shut out to outside competition for almost a year. Despite these shots being marketed and sold as akin to a cure to a coronavirus, they have catastrophically failed to achieve that result. Despite COVID-19 being declared the pandemic of the century, American regulatory agencies remain adamantly opposed to opening the market to more participants.

On December 11th, 2020, the FDA issued emergency use authorization (EUA) to Pfizer and BioNTech for their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. government has since spent billions of taxpayer dollars on hundreds of millions of Pfizer shots.

On December 18th, 2020, the FDA issued an EUA to Moderna for their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. government has since spent billions of taxpayer dollars on hundreds of millions of Moderna shots.

On February 27th, 2021, the FDA issued an EUA to Johnson & Johnson for their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. government has since spent billions of taxpayer dollars on hundreds of millions of Johnson & Johnson shots.

All of these shots were developed in early 2020. None have been updated or optimized for variants. Yet they remain the only three shots in town.

Since the early 2021 J&J approval, the FDA has failed to authorize any other candidates for emergency use. The overwhelming majority of taxpayer funds spent on COVID vaccines have gone to Moderna and Pfizer.

Now, some of you readers will know by now that I have become deeply skeptical of the merits of this entire new market, which is rife with the worst of pharmaceutical snake oil salesmen. However, it is worth exploring why the U.S. continues to operate under the Big Three vaccine paradigm.

The COVID-19 problem has not exactly gone away, and the global COVID-19 vaccine market has ballooned into a massive industry, with hundreds of candidates surfacing from all over the world.

Why does the United States still only have 3 authorized COVID vaccines (the approved Pfizer shot remains inaccessible in the United States) for emergency use only? Let’s take a global snapshot of what’s going on elsewhere.

The European Medicines Agency has authorized 5 COVID vaccines for use. They list the Big Three U.S. shots plus Novavax and AstraZeneca. Additionally, European regulators have listed 4 other shots under a “rolling review” process.

The World Health Organization (WHO) now lists 10 COVID vaccines that are approved for use under their emergency use listing authority.

What are individual nations doing?

America’s top competitors are pursuing a “vaccine nationalism” strategy. China has authorized 6 shots (4 of which are inactivated vaccines), and all of them are produced by Chinese companies.

Russia has authorized 4, and all of them are produced by Russian companies.

Most countries are pursuing their vaccine strategy in line with their current alliance structure. This reality does not seem to conform to the narrative of a global, devastating plague, but rather, a geopolitical struggle in the name of a virus. China’s allies are committing to China’s vaccines. Russia’s allies are committing to Russia’s vaccines. The Western world is committing to the U.S.-based shots, plus the Oxford-Astrazeneca shot.

Other nations seem to be engaging in a “we hope something will work” strategy. Indonesia and the Philippines have authorized 11 shots. India, Mexico, Hungary, and Argentina have authorized 9 shots. Vietnam has allowed for 8. Nigeria and Pakistan have said yes to 7.

U.S. “public health” officials have defended the cartel behavior of the Biden Administration, claiming Americans already have access to the very best COVID shots. In late May, the FDA reinforced this position by notifying manufacturers that it may start issuing blanket rejections for new EUA applications, claiming it is too much of a regulatory hassle to go through all of their new data.

Still, companies from around the world continue to submit EUA applications for their COVID-19 vaccines, with zero having secured the golden ticket to the U.S. market. It remains mRNA or bust in the United States.

U.S. public health bureaucrat Anthony Fauci was pushed on this issue in an interview at the end of the year. The D.C. lifer rejected the idea that America should open up the playing field to promising candidates outside of the mRNA (Moderna and Pfizer) vaccines. 

When the host asked if the U.S. would entertain the merits of Covaxin (an inactivated vaccine candidate from India’s Bharat Biotech), Fauci went nuclear on her.

“We have enough vaccines, the best vaccines available in the United States … We have what we need. We need to use it.

We don’t need another vaccine. We have plenty of vaccines.”

Despite America’s current regime claiming that Americans have access to the “very best” shots in every major pharmacy across our country, the actual COVID datasure doesn’t suggest anything resembling the idea that our mRNA dominant approach is acting in a more beneficial manner than any other candidate available across the world.

It certainly seems to be a no-brainer that the U.S. would be better off allowing more competitors to enter the space. The hundreds of Big Pharma lobbyists who represent the interests of the Big Three would prefer that never happens. And once again, in line with the recurring theme throughout COVID Mania, it seems that America’s ruling class is making regulatory decisions far removed from its citizens’ actual health interests.

*

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 COVID World

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In another defeat of Biden’s military vaccine mandates, a federal judge barred the U.S. Department of Defense from disciplining military service members who object to COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds.

In another defeat for the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for members of the armed services, a federal judge on Jan. 3 issued a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) from disciplining military service members who object to COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds.

The injunction was issued by The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.

The case in question concerns a group of 35 NAVY SEALs and other special forces members. They sued the Biden administration and the DOD, which denied the service members’ requests for a religious exemption.

The 35 service members, whose identities were not made public and who serve at a variety of locations which remain classified and confidential, collectively possess more than 350 years of military service and have completed more than 100 combat deployments.

Each of the members reportedly inquired about being granted a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate. The Navy responded in most cases that the service members would be subject to possible court-martial or involuntary separation from the forces.

They were also threatened with confiscation of their Special Warfare devices, including the famous SEAL “trident” worn on their uniforms.

Each of the written denials the service members received were identical, suggesting their requests were not given individualized consideration by the Navy, The Associated Press reported.

Following the denials, the 35 individuals filed a federal lawsuit and subsequent motion for preliminary injunction via the First Liberty Institute, a non-profit public interest law firm specializing in cases pertaining to religious freedom.

In his preliminary order, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor wrote:

“The Navy service members in this case seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect. The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms.

“There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution.”

Responding to the issuance of the preliminary injunction, Mike Berry, general counsel for First Liberty Institute, said:

“Forcing a service member to choose between their faith and serving their country is abhorrent to the Constitution and America’s values.

“Punishing SEALs for simply asking for a religious accommodation is purely vindictive and punitive. We’re pleased that the court has acted to protect our brave warriors before more damage is done to our national security.”

The Pentagon is considering lodging an appeal against the preliminary injunction. Such an appeal would reportedly send the case up to a federal appeals court, which could choose to uphold the injunction pending a full hearing, or overturn it.

Notably, The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently also ruled against the implementation of a mask and vaccine mandate for participants in federal Head Start programs.

Religious exemptions recognized only on paper in armed forces

As reported by military.com, no branch of the military has yet approved a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine. Indeed, no religious exemption of any kind has been granted by the Navy and Marine Corps in at least seven years.

Several branches of the military instead moved in recent weeks to discharge service members whose applications for a religious exemption were denied.

The Marine Corps, for instance, recently discharged 206 Marines, claiming it has denied 3,115 of the 3,247 requests that it had received.

The Air Force reported 4,652 pending religious exemption requests, while the Navy reported 2,844 such requests are in progress.

The Air Force has, until now, announced the discharge of only 27 service members for non-vaccination, while the Navy has not announced any discharges of non-vaccinated members as of yet.

In the meantime, myriad other legal challenges against military-related vaccine mandates continue to work their way through U.S. courts.

On Jan. 4, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced his administration will sue the Pentagon in an effort to block its vaccine mandate for the Texas National Guard.

In December 2021, a federal judge ruled against Oklahoma’s attempt to block the mandate for that state’s National Guard.

And, as reported by The Defender, 18 military service members on Dec. 10, 2021, filed an amended complaint, seeking an injunction against the implementation of the vaccine mandate.

In the latter instance, the service members are drawing upon an earlier determination made by a judge in the case, that the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, which was fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but is apparently unavailable in the U.S., and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine licensed under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) are not interchangeable.

This distinction now forms the basis of one of the arguments put forth by the service members in their amended complaint.

*

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.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Chinese foreign ministers have traditionally marked the new year by visiting the African continent. Wang Yi’s 2022 African tour begins with Eritrea against the backdrop of the US strategy in the Horn of Africa to gain control of the strategically vital Red Sea that connects Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal. 

Eritrea and China are close friends. China was a supporter of the Eritrean liberation movement since the 1970s. Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki, the veteran revolutionary who led the independence movement, had received military training in China. More recently, Eritrea was one of the 54 countries backing China’s Hong Kong policy (against 39 voicing concern in a rival Western bloc) at the UN General Assembly in October 2020. 

Last November, Eritrea signed an MoU with China to join the Belt And Road Initiative. Neighbouring Djibouti is already a major participant in the BRI. So is Sudan along the Red Sea coastline. 

Central to regional cohesion in the Horn of Africa is the relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It has been a conflict-ridden troubled relationship but China, which also has close ties with Ethiopia, is well-placed to meditate reconciliation. 

One common view is that Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed pulled off a stunning victory in the conflict with US-backed Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) with the help of armed drones supplied by the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Iran. But civil wars are won on the ground. And the politico-military axis between Ethiopia and Eritrea to take on the TPLF proved to be the decisive factor. China encouraged the rapprochement between Addis Ababa and Asmara. 

Effectively, the two leaderships understood that they have a congruence of interests in thwarting the TPLF which is an American proxy to destabilise their countries and trigger regime changes. (Read the analysis in CounterPunch titled Ethiopia Conflict by US Design.)

Washington is mighty displeased that China’s influence in Djibouti is on the rise and resents that the Marxist regime of Isaias Afewerki keeps the US at arm’s length.

The Horn of Africa is of great strategic importance, and Ethiopia sits at its heart. Destabilise Ethiopia and impact the whole region; install a dictatorial expansionist ethnocentric regime (TPLF); sow division and poison the atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation that is being built within the region — this is the neocolonial agenda.

President Uhuru of Kenya, speaking at Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s inauguration had said, “Ethiopia is the Mother of African independence……for all of us on the continent, Ethiopia is our Mother… As we know, if the Mother is not at peace, the family cannot be at peace.” 

The US is going for the jugular veins of the Mother of post-colonial Africa. Ana analogy would be destabilising India to gain control of the South Asian region, the difference being that Ethiopia is the only African country never to have been colonised.

The widespread revulsion among Afghans all over the continent is palpable over the US using its TPLF proxy to destabilise Ethiopia. Their collective cry is “No more” — no more colonialism, no more sanctions, no more disinformation, no more lies by the CNN, BBC, etc. The cry resonates widely amongst the Ethiopians, Eritreans, Sudanese, Somali, Kenyan, and friends of Ethiopia. 

The paradox is, Ethiopia today has a democratically elected government after decades of thuggery under the TPLF that ruled with an iron fist for over 30 years with US backing. The Tigray people actually add up to only 5% of Ethiopia’s population but such details were irrelevant to Washington so long as the government in Addis Ababa obeyed its diktat. 

There is also a religious sub-text. The Tigray people are Christians whereas the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia is the Oromo, native to the region of Ethiopia and Kenya. They are a Cushitic people who have inhabited the East and Northeast Africa since at least the early 1st millennium. The Oromo people have a glorious history of forced resistance to religious conversion, primarily by European explorers, Catholic Christians missionaries.

Broadly, the resistance ideology is embedded in the Oromo collective memory. Abiy Ahmed is the first ethnic Oromo to become prime minister. Nobel laureate Abiy Ahmed is an extraordinary politician, far-sighted and deeply committed to his country’s plural identity national sovereignty. 

In geopolitical terms, Washington would see many advantages in the destabilisation of Ethiopia as it would trigger a multi-vector regional conflagration, as happens when multi-ethnic nations unravel — such as the former Yugoslavia or today’s India or Russia. And neighbouring countries would be inevitably sucked into ethnic wars such as Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya — and even Egypt and Persian Gulf states. 

The fact that the UAE, Turkey and Iran — improbable allies — are supporting Abiy’s desperate effort to preserve Ethiopia’s sovereignty and national cohesion and helped boost his military campaign to ward off another attempt by the US-backed TPLF to capture power speaks volumes.   

In this matrix, while the US aims to dominate the hugely strategic Horn of Africa, “Plan B” will be to be the spoiler by throwing the region into turmoil so that China is also a loser. The point is, the Western world has no answer to China’s BRI. 

China and Ethiopia have a strong political affinity and deep economic bonds, and Ethiopia is one of China’s top five investment destinations on the African continent. Beyond investment, relations extend to trade, infrastructure finance and other areas. Economic engagement with China has provided Ethiopia with many opportunities.

Curiously, even prior to the advent of the BRI, China was already a major financier of Ethiopia’s infrastructure. Chinese investment in the manufacturing sector — incidentally, one of the Abiy government’s focus areas currently — has contributed to the country’s economic transformation and diversification and to job creation. 

A recent report by the well-known London-based global think-tank ODI titled The Belt and Road and Chinese Enterprises in Ethiopia estimates that China’s BRI “has the potential to open up new development pathways through infrastructure development, stimulating investment and job creation and promoting economic transformation… BRI can be an engine for growth and development. However, this is not a given…”

The ODI report, dated August 2021, concludes, “Chinese investors are concerned regarding economic and political uncertainty in Ethiopia. Political uncertainty has to do with domestic conflict and political instability, which may affect not only investors’ profitability, but also their personal safety and the safety of their assets. The economic challenges relate to high production and transport costs and the difficulties of accessing foreign exchange, which is a problem for virtually all Chinese businesses in the country. The challenges identified by Chinese investors could pose a threat to the sustained development of China–Ethiopia economic cooperation.” 

Simply put, if there is mayhem in Ethiopia, the locomotive of China’s BRI in the vast regions of the Horn of Africa and East Africa can be potentially slowed down if not derailed. That is the least the US can do faced with the grim prospect that it has no alternative offer to make to the African nations to counter the BRI.

If the BRI locomotive chugs along unimpeded, the entire Western neocolonial project in Africa in the 21st century is threatened with extinction. The existential angst shows in the Biden Administration’s announcement on New Year’s Eve terminating Ethiopia’s access to the US duty-free trade program under the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA “amid the widening conflict in northern Ethiopia.” 

President Biden had threatened in November already that Ethiopia would be cut off from the AGOA because of alleged human rights violations in the Tigray region. Biden spoke up in sheer despair in anticipation of Wang Yi’s working visit to Ethiopia on December1! 

*

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: Ethiopian troops vanquish US-backed Tigray rebels (File photo)

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In 1958, a year after it achieved independence from colonial rule, Ghana hosted a conference of African leaders, the first such gathering to ever take place on the continent. At the invitation of Ghana’s newly elected prime minister, Kwame Nkrumah, more than 300 leaders from 28 territories across Africa attended, including Patrice Lumumba of the still-Belgian Congo and Frantz Fanon, who was then living in still-French Algeria. It was a time of unlimited potential for a group of people determined to chart a new course for their homelands. But the host wanted his guests not to forget the dangers ahead of them. “Do not let us also forget that colonialism and imperialism may come to us yet in a different guise—not necessarily from Europe.”

In fact, the agents Nkrumah feared were already present. Not long after the event began, Ghanaian police arrested a journalist who had been hiding in one of the conference rooms while apparently trying to record a closed breakout session. As it was later discovered, the journalist actually worked for a CIA front organization, one of many represented at the event.

British scholar Susan Williams has spent years documenting these and other instances of the United States’ secret operations during the early years of African independence. The resulting book, White Malice: The CIA and the Covert Recolonization of Africa, may be the most thorough investigation to date of CIA involvement in Africa in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Over more than 500 pages, Williams counters the lies, deceptions, and pleas of innocence perpetuated by the CIA and other US agencies to reveal a government that never let its failure to grasp the motivations of Africa’s leaders stop it from intervening, often violently, to undermine or overthrow them.

Though a few other African countries appear on the sidelines, White Malice overwhelmingly concerns just two that preoccupied the CIA during this period: Ghana and what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ghana’s appeal to the agency was based merely on its place in history. As the first African nation to gain independence, in 1957, and the homeland of Nrukmah—by far the most widely respected advocate of African self-determination of the day—the nation was inevitably a source of intrigue. The Congo stepped out of its colonial shackles soon after, in 1960. Because of its size, position near southern Africa’s bastions of white rule, and reserves of high-quality uranium at the Shinkolobwe mine in Katanga province, the country soon became the next locus of the agency’s attention—and interference—in Africa.

“This is a turning point in the history of Africa,” Nkrumah told Ghana’s National Assembly during a visit from Congolese Prime Minister Lumumba a few weeks into the Congo’s self-rule. “If we allow the independence of the Congo to be compromised in any way by the imperialist and capitalist forces, we shall expose the sovereignty and independence of all Africa to grave risk.”

Nkrumah possessed an acute understanding of the threat and of the people behind it. Only months after his speech, Lumumba was assassinated by a Belgian and Congolese firing squad, opening the door to decades of pro-western tyranny in the country.

Lumumba’s assassination is remembered today as one of the low points of the early years of African independence, but a lacking documentary record has allowed partisan investigators to minimize the CIA’s role. It’s a failure of accountability which has allowed the agency to appear blameless while reinforcing a fatalistic view of African history, as if the murder of an elected official was merely another terrible thing that had “just happened” to a people utterly unprepared for the challenge of independence.

But as Williams shows, the CIA was actually one of the chief architects of the plot. Only days after Lumumba’s visit to Ghana, Larry Devlin, the agency’s leading man in the Congo, warned his bosses of a vague takeover plot involving the Soviets, Ghanaians, Guineans, and the local communist party. It was “difficult [to] determine major influencing factors,” he said. Despite a complete lack of evidence, he was certain the “decisive period” when the Congo would align itself with the Soviet Union was “not far off.” Soon after, President Eisenhower verbally ordered the CIA to assassinate Lumumba.

The CIA’s agents did not, in the end, man the firing squad to kill Lumumba. But as Williams makes clear, that distinction is minor when one considers everything else the agency did to assist in the murder. After inventing and disseminating the bogus conspiracy plot of a pro-Soviet takeover, the CIA leveraged its multitude of sources in Katanga to provide intelligence to Lumumba’s enemies, making his capture possible. They helped to deliver him to the Katanga prison where he was held before his execution. Williams even cites a few lines from a recently declassified CIA expense report to show that Devlin, the station chief, ordered one of his agents to visit the prison not long before the bullets were fired.

When Nkrumah learned of Lumumba’s assassination, he felt it “in a very keen and personal way,” according to June Milne, his British research assistant. But horrifying as the news was to him, the Ghanaian statesman was hardly surprised.

White Malice is a triumph of archival research, and its best moments come when Williams allows the actors on both sides to speak for themselves. While books about African independence often show Nkrumah and his peers to be paranoid and hopelessly idealistic, reading their words alongside a mountain of evidence of CIA misdeeds, one sees how fear and idealism were entirely pragmatic reactions to the threats of the day. Nkrumah’s vision of African unity wasn’t the pipe dream of a naive and untested politician; it was a necessary response to a concerted effort to divide and weaken the continent.

In Nkrumah’s own country, the US government appears not to have pursued a course of outright assassination. But it acted in other ways to undermine the Ghanaian leader, often justifying its ploys with the same kinds of paternalistic rationalizations the British had used before them. Those efforts reached their nadir in 1964, when the US State Department’s West Africa specialists sent a memo to G. Mennen Williams, the department’s head of African affairs, titled, “Proposed Action Program for Ghana.” The United States, it said, should start making “intensive efforts” involving “psychological warfare and other means to diminish support for Nkrumah within Ghana and nurture the conviction among the Ghanaian people that their country’s welfare and independence necessitate his removal.” In another file from that year, an official from Britain’s Commonwealth Relations Office mentions a plan, ostensibly approved at the highest levels of the foreign service, for “covert and unattributable attacks on Nkrumah.”

The level of coordination between governments within and outside the United States might have shocked Nkrumah, who, until the end of his life, was at least willing to believe the CIA was a rogue agency, accountable to no one, not even US presidents.

White Malice leaves little doubt, if any still existed, that the CIA did grave harm to Africa in its early days of independence, often violently. But while Williams presents numerous instances of the CIA and other agencies undermining African governments, often violently, the CIA’s wider strategy in Africa—apart from denying uranium and allies to the Soviet Union—remains opaque. What we call “colonization” as practiced by Britain, France, Belgium, and others involved a vast machinery of exploitation—schools to train children to speak the masters’ language, railroads to deplete the interior of resources—all maintained by an army of functionaries. But even in the Congo, the CIA’s presence was comparatively small. Huge budgets and the freedom to do virtually whatever they wanted in the name of fighting communism gave them an outsize influence over Africa’s history, but their numbers never rivaled the colonial bureaucracies they supposedly replaced.

Williams shows how the CIA plotted with business people who stood to benefit from pro-western African governments in both the Congo and Ghana. But far from a systematic practice of extraction, the agency’s designs for Africa often seem befuddled with contradiction.

That is especially true in the aftermath of Lumumba’s assassination; an overabundance of secrecy still prevents a full accounting. But what records have been pried from the agency’s hands reveal details of a multitude of CIA aerial operations in the Congo, involving planes owned by agency front companies and pilots who were themselves CIA personnel. During a period of upheaval, the agency appears to be everywhere in the country at once. “But,” Williams writes, “it is a confusing situation in which the CIA appears to have been riding several horses at once that were going in different directions.” The agency “supported [Katangan secessionist president Moïse] Tshombe’s war on the UN; it supported the UN mission in the Congo; and it supported the Congolese Air Force, the air arm of the Leopoldville government.”

As contradictory as these efforts seem to have been, all of them, Williams writes, “contributed to the objective of keeping the whole of the Congo under America’s influence and guarding the Shinkolobwe mine against Soviet incursion.”

Even if such conflicting plans shared a common goal, it’s not unreasonable to ask whether we should consider them “colonialism”—neo- or otherwise—or rather the schizophrenic response of an agency drunk with power it never should have been afforded. In White Malice, the CIA’s capacity for committing murder and sowing discord is on full display. Its capacity to rule, however, is less so.

*

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

Alex Park is a writer and researcher with an interest in global trade and agriculture in Africa.

Featured image: Woman walks by the rather large vibrant mural dedicated to Patrice Lumumba, political leader who brought freedom to the Congo, in L.A.’s Leimert Park. Photo credit Joey Zanotti via Flickr CC BY 2.0.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Children have, by far, the lowest risk for serious COVID-19 infection; COVID policies have therefore had an outsized impact on children and teens

Suicide attempts among girls rose 51% in 2021

Between 2019 and 2020, adolescent overdose mortality rose from 2.35 per 100,000 to 4.58 per 100,000, a 94.3% increase

Fentanyl fatalities among teens nearly tripled between 2019 to 2020, and represented 76.6% of adolescent overdose deaths in 2021

Children’s health is also being decimated by COVID jab mandates. A declaration signed by 16,000 doctors and scientists calls for the elimination of all COVID jab mandates for children

*

“They will be paying for our generation’s decisions the rest of their lives”: @JanCBS explains why she thinks 2021's biggest underreported story was the devastating impact of COVID policies on children pic.twitter.com/AUU1f6AFNi

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) December 26, 2021

As noted by CBS reporter Jan Crawford during a Face the Nation roundtable discussion¹ December 26, 2021, children have — by far — the lowest risk for serious COVID-19 infection and, in her view, COVID policies have therefore had an outsized impact on children and teens.

“Even teenagers, you know, a healthy teenager, has a one in a million chance of getting and dying from COVID, which is way lower than … dying in a car wreck on a road trip. But they have suffered and sacrificed the most,” Crawford said.

“And now we have the Surgeon General saying there’s a mental health crisis among our kids. The risk of suicide attempts among girls [is] now up 51% this year, [and] Black kids [are] nearly twice as likely as white kids to die by suicide.

School closures, lockdowns, cancellation of sports. You couldn’t even go on a playground in the D.C. area without cops … shooing the kids off. [It has had a] tremendous negative impact on kids, and it’s been an afterthought.

You know, it’s hurt their dreams, their future learning … risk of abuse, their mental health … [If] our policies don’t reflect a more measured and reasonable approach for our children, they will be paying for our generation’s decisions [for] the rest of their lives. And that, to me, is the greatest underreported story of the past year.”

Many Students Report Feeling Out of Control

In related news, The New York Times on Christmas Eve published an article² by Erica Green, reviewing the impact extended school shutdowns have had on students.

“Teenagers arguably bore the social and emotional brunt of school disruptions,” she writes, noting that across the U.S., high school-aged teens have over the past two years reported “some of the most alarming mental health declines, evidenced by depression and suicide attempts.”

According to Green, “large numbers” of high school students have missed “most or all of the 2020-2021 academic year,” and as a result, failed classes that are “critical to their futures.”

Harrison Bailey, Ph.D., principal of Liberty High School in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, described the general sentiment among students as “resignation and indignation,” with “blunt and flagrant disrespect” being “rampant.”

Bailey has had to intervene in an unusually large number of fist fights and hall brawls as students resumed classes in person. The school’s wellness center has also been “overwhelmed” with students reporting anxiety and depression. Green writes:

“By December, referrals for the school’s Student Assistance Program — in which teams of counselors and administrators coordinate resources for troubled students — had reached 300, compared with a total of 500 for the entire 2019-20 school year.

At a recent meeting, where administrators sifted through their caseloads of ‘sapped’ students, they described them in blunt terms: ‘feral,’ ‘a mess’ and ‘work in progress.’ ‘I think kids are just feeling like … the world’s out of control,’ Dr. Bailey said. ‘So, they’re like, ‘The world’s out of control, why should I be in control?’”

Aside from violence, Bailey is seeing another, in many respects even more concerning trend: apathy. Many are coming to school wearing their pajamas. Overall, virtual learning has proven to be nothing short of a disaster. A total failure. What the experiment has taught us is that school is not just a place where you learn a bunch of information. It’s a place where you learn socialization skills.

Many are now years behind in this regard, as COVID restrictions and masks have prevented interpersonal engagement and dialogue. “People don’t know how to communicate anymore,” 18-year-old Jazlyn Korpics told Green. “Everybody’s a robot now — their minds are warped.”

Nancy Ettwein, who ran the school’s wellness center until November 2021, told Green the No. 1 complaint has been anxiety: “Anxiety about being in the classroom, being in front of people, speaking to people, anyone looking at them.” Many of the student referrals for mental health say the student is just “sitting and crying in the bathroom.”

This abnormal response to normal social encounters is undoubtedly the result of extended isolation and lack of face-to-face interactions with other humans. Sixteen-year-old Kaisyn Carswell described pandemic life as “emptiness, but the emptiness is really heavy.” Another student reported spending the entire year of 2020 playing video games all day long.

Many Faculty Are at Wits End

School faculty are also struggling. Green reports:³

“Survey results⁴ released this month by the National Association of Secondary School Principals raised alarms that the pipeline of principals might be another casualty of the pandemic, as their roles grow more amorphous and untenable.

In responses to the survey, which included a nationally representative sample of leaders, only 35 percent said they ‘strongly agree’ with being generally satisfied in their jobs, down from 63 percent in 2019.

Ranking among the highest on their list of challenges during the pandemic was providing mental health support to students and providing guidance and mental health support to staff. Sixty-eight percent were worried about teacher shortages and teacher burnout.

Only 23 percent ‘strongly agree’ that the size of their administrative team is adequate to support staff and students, and only 21 percent ‘strongly agree’ that there are adequate student services personnel like nurses and counselors.”

Drug Overdoses Surge Among High Schoolers

With despair and lack of purpose and direction comes increased drug use, with recent statistics showing a shocking spike in fentanyl overdose deaths among high school-aged adolescents in the U.S. during 2020 and 2021.

The following graph, from a December 24, 2021, preprint article⁵ posted on medRxiv and tweeted⁶out by Dr. John B., a scientist, illustrates the situation better than words.

According to the authors:⁷

“Adolescent overdose mortality saw a sharp increase between 2019 and 2020, from 2.35 per 100,000 to 4.58 per 100,000, representing a 94.3% increase, the largest percent increase of any 5-year age group.

American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) adolescents, Latinx adolescents, and adolescents in the West census region were disproportionately affected, overdose death rates 2.15, 1.31, and 1.68 times the national average in 2021, respectively.

Trends were driven by fatalities involving IMFs [illicitly-manufactured-fentanyls], which nearly tripled from 2019 to 2020, and represented 76.6% of adolescent overdose deaths in 2021 …

Our results should also be understood in the context of rising rates of adolescent mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the urgent need for accurate, harm-reduction-oriented education for early adolescents about the risks of an evolving drug supply, as well as greater access to naloxone and services that check drugs for the presence of IMFs.”

COVID Jab Taking a Toll Among Young Boys

Teens are also being assaulted by health problems brought on by the COVID jabs, which may over time make the mental health decline even worse than it currently is, especially among boys. According to a report by Steve Kirsch, who’s been following and investigating COVID shot side effects, one private school in California is seeing a dramatic rise in myocarditis among boys — a condition that can have lifelong consequences, severely reducing one’s quality of life. He writes:⁸

“For a long time, I’ve been on the record as saying that the rate of myocarditis is around 1 in 317 for teenage boys. That was a conservative estimate since it used a VAERS under-reporting factor of 41, which is reserved for only the most serious events … a more ‘realistic’ estimate is 1 in 150.

Today I heard from a parent of a child who attends Monte Vista Christian school that three children were diagnosed with myocarditis after they got the vaccine. The school has 855 kids … Let’s do a little math.

The ratio of male to female rates of myocarditis is roughly 10:1, so it’s a good bet these were all boys. Roughly half the school are boys. There has never been a vaccine mandate at the school. So I’d estimate conservatively that 2/3 of the kids could have been vaccinated by then. So, 855/2×2/3=285 vaccinated boys.

So the rate of myocarditis at the school by my estimate is 3/285 which is 1 in 95 boys. This makes sense to me overall; it is not far from my 1 in 150 estimate. One in 95 boys with myocarditis (which is never ‘mild’) should cause an immediate halt to the vaccines and an examination of how the CDC could possibly miss a safety signal this large.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also monitoring eight cases of myocarditis in 5- to 11-year-olds who got the Pfizer COVID jab.⁹ Adding insult to injury, it’s now clear the shots are not providing the protection promised.

According to Cornell University, of the 903 cases of Omicron infection reported during the week of December 7 through 13, 2021, which shut down the Ithaca, New York campus, almost all were in fully jabbed students.¹⁰ Some had received three shots.

Sacrifice the Young to ‘Protect’ the Old?

As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., never before has a society demanded that children take risks that might sacrifice their health in order to protect the old.¹¹ It’s immoral and irrational.

Writing in The Defender,¹² Dr. Robert Malone highlighted the second Physicians Declaration¹³ by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, dated October 29, 2021, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.

Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity. The declaration also demands that health agencies and institutions “cease interfering with physicians treating individual patients.”

Three Things Parents Must Know

Malone writes:¹⁴

“Before you inject your child — a decision that is irreversible — I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created.

There are three issues parents need to understand: The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including:

The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable:

The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested. We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks. Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later.

Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history. One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.

Your children represent no danger to their parents or grandparents. It’s actually the opposite. Their immunity, after getting COVID, is critical to save your family if not the world from this disease.

In summary: There is no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine that as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives. The risk/benefit analysis isn’t even close. As a parent and grandparent, my recommendation to you is to resist and fight to protect your children.”

Without doubt, we have loads of work ahead of us. In all likelihood, it will take years to undo the harm these past two years have inflicted on our children, both physically and psychologically. But as a first step, we must resolve to protect children from lifelong health problems caused by these experimental jabs.

If we allow tens of thousands of children, perhaps even millions, to be permanently injured, resulting in lifelong disabilities and ill health, the psychological devastation will be unimaginable.

*

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

Notes

¹ CBS News December 26, 2021

^2, 3 New York Times December 24, 2021

⁴ NASSP.org survey

^5, 7 medRxiv December 24, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.12.23.21268284

⁶ Twitter Dr. John B December 25, 2021

⁸ The Covid World December 28, 2021

⁹ The Defender December 20, 2021

¹⁰ CNN December 16, 2021

^11, 12, 14 The Defender December 15, 2021

¹³ Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Global Research wants to extend our best wishes to our readers for the New Year!

We are immensely grateful for the support we received in the past year. Albeit a bumpy journey, we are glad to have capped it off with a surge in readership. Thanks to you, our dear readers, for your unrelenting support!

This 2022, it remains our objective to double down in our fight for truth, remain in solidarity with the oppressed, and stay committed to reporting facts unheard of in corporate media.

Will you, our dear readers, help us in the fulfillment of this endeavor? 

Global Research is independent. We rely almost entirely on the contributions of our readers, authors and research associates.

Please support our January campaign, consider making a donation or becoming a member.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

---

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

As Planned Parenthood gears up for the fight of its political life to save Roe v. Wade from a Supreme Court reversal, new medical concerns have emerged that were not part of the debate in 1973. 

At issue for today’s Court is the long-standing question of when personhood begins; that is when a fetus exhibits the first signs of life.  While Roe gave women the ‘constitutional’ right to an abortion up to six months (27 weeks) of pregnancy,the Court amended Roe in 1992 when Casey v. Planned Parenthood entitled women to an abortion up to 24 weeks.  However, two pending cases before the Court challenge the concept of abortion with evidence of life’s beginning.  One recent subject of oral arguments was Mississippi’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health which bans an abortion after fifteen weeks while the Court allowed Texas SB 8 which bans abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected (six weeks), to continue without a ‘stay’.

Legal affirmation of the first signs of life may also dramatically affect PP’s sale of abortion-generated fetal parts and tissue to research labs.   While the fetus grows to human shape by 12 weeks, PP’s abortions and fetal tissue recovery begin at 16 weeks (4 months pregnant) through 22/24 weeks (5 – 6 months pregnant) with an 18 week/second trimester fetus especially valuable.  Obviously the longer the pregnancy, the more developed and valuable fetal parts and tissue are on the medical research market.  The ideal for any research lab is a fully intact fetus whose organs are considerably developed and therefore most valuable, especially its brain and heart.

While the Court may be tempted to apply stare decisis (‘to stand by that which has already been decided ”) which reaffirms earlier S.Court decisions as settled law; yet to allow Roe/Casey to remain would refute medical or science advances while affirming that Roe’s original legal underpinnings were as legally and morally valid today as in 1973.

The Reality of Abortion Politics

While the medical and health issues of abortion may appear to take precedence, the political reality is that the national Democratic party has made a significant political investment over the years in preserving Roe as it cultivated PP’s impressive membership just as PP benefitted from its association with the Democrats as its guardian on the battlefield of legislative conflict.

Both sides have been intent to convey the politically sensitive message that PP is an unapologetic ally of the Democrats and that it is the Dems who care about women’s health.  Today abortion can be counted as one of the Democratic party’s most valuable historic successes that provided them with a massive politically active national constituency.  That membership is now of paramount importance to the Democrat’s 2022 re-election and its domestic agenda which has taken a hit since the 2020 election, having lost much of its blue collar support with Biden’s questionable election.

As new science, medical, technology and cultural facts have come to light since 1973, there is no room for disenfranchisement or any possible dissension within the ranks.  Dems cannot allow the Supreme Court to tarnish that political history, to besmirch an issue that once defined PP as a respected community minded, egalitarian association as an indispensable support network for American women.   Instead of participating in an open dialogue about ‘when does life begin’, we can expect the usual Democratic spin of obfuscation and falsehoods, a reliance on their tried-and-true strategy in the face of the hard scientific evidence.  The predicted political dispute is that neither PP nor the Dems will admit that abortion exhibits any profound flaws and offer no concession that the beginning of life is now decided science.

In other words, the stakes could not be higher for both PP and the Democrats as Roe must prevail at the Supreme Court or face the very real catastrophic disintegration of one of the party’s most reliable bastions for electoral support.

Fetal Tissue Controversy

In July, 2015, the Center for Medical Progress released a series of nineteen undercover interview videos with numerous PP executives especially focused on sale of its abortion-provided human fetal tissue.   One video is more shocking than the next as PP staff discuss how to end a baby’s life as casual and nonchalant as if discussing the family dog’s visit to the vet.  Appearing totally focused on the organization’s bottom line, each reveal little emotion or compassion and a troublesome disconnect from any real awareness of the implications of their behavior.  The interview videos reveal that the entire fetal tissue process is more of an organizational priority, more predominant and essential to PP as a business opportunity than otherwise expected.

There was discussion as to what type of abortion technique was better utilized for its lack of injury on a fetus: whether digoxin which induces an almost immediate ‘demised’ fetus before abortion or other ‘dismemberment’ techniques like suction or how to skirt the Congressional partial birth abortion ban.

In 2018,  a National Institute of Health paper entitled “The Use of Aborted Fetal Tissue in Vaccines and Medical  Research Obscures the Value of all Human Life”  further stated that  ‘the commercialization of fetal tissue is not a new practice.  The utilization of embryonic and fetal cells from elective abortions in the pharmaceutical industry and medical research is commonplace.”

While the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 allows a woman to ‘donate’ her fetal tissue after an abortion, fetal tissue is often passed to biological-research supply companies as intermediaries which then process the tissue before selling it to medical lab researchers.

One can only imagine how a woman who experienced an abortion now knows that her baby was destroyed with a functioning human heart and its parts sold to a commercial lab.

*

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.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

She 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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

NATO expresses concern over the crisis in Libya, which “has direct implications for regional stability and the security of all Allies.” It therefore assures that it “remains committed to providing Libya with defense and security advice”. The governments of the US, France, Germany, Italy and the UK declare that “free elections will allow the Libyan people to strengthen their sovereignty” and that they are “ready to hold to account those who threaten Libya’s stability.” They reaffirm then “the full respect and commitment to the sovereignty and independence of Libya”.

Solemn words pronounced by the same powers that, after having demolished Yugoslavia in the nineties, disintegrating it from the inside and attacking it from the outside, with the same technique demolished the Libyan State in 2011. First they financed and armed inside tribal sectors and Islamic groups hostile to the government, and infiltrated special forces, in particular from Qatar, to make armed clashes flare up. Then they attacked it from outside: in seven months, the US/NATO air force carried out 30 thousand missions, 10 thousand of which were attacks, with over 40 thousand bombs and missiles. Italy participated in the war — directed by the United States, first through the Africa Command, then through NATO under US command — with 7 air bases, fighter-bombers and an aircraft carrier.

The African state was thus demolished, a state that — documented in 2010 by the World Bank — had “high levels of economic growth and human development”. Thanks to energy exports, the Libyan government had invested nearly 150 billion dollars abroad. Libyan investments in Africa were crucial to the African Union’s plan to create its own financial bodies, a common market and a single African currency. Emails from the Secretary of State of the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, later brought to light by WikiLeaks, show that the United States and France wanted to eliminate Gaddafi before he used Libya’s gold reserves to create a pan-African currency alternative to the dollar and the Cfa franc (the currency imposed by France on 14 former colonies). Before the bombers went into action, the banks went into action: they seized the 150 billion dollars invested abroad by the Libyan government, most of which has since disappeared, thus blocking the entire African project.

All of this has been erased in the political-media narrative of the Libyan crisis, allowing those primarily responsible for the social catastrophe caused by the war on Libya to present themselves as its saviors. Today in Libya the revenues from energy exports are hoarded by militias and multinationals. Large quantities of Libyan oil are sold by smugglers to European Union countries, through Maltese companies that recycle it, disguising its origin. The standard of living of the population has collapsed. Libya has become the main transit route of a chaotic migratory flow that has caused more victims than the war of 2011. According to IOM data, about 1,500 migrants drowned in the Mediterranean in 2021, but they are certainly more since many cases are not reported. About 30 thousand migrants, in 2021, were intercepted at sea and brought back to Libya by the “Libyan” Coast Guard, created, trained and financed by Italy with 33 million euros. Many ended up in detention centers of both the “government” in Tripoli and the militias. Today more than 600,000 migrants of around 45 nationalities are trapped in Libya, practically reduced to a state of slavery, forced to work without pay and beaten. More and more are those who ask not to be brought to Europe, but to return to their countries to escape this condition. Particularly dramatic is that of young women, sold at auction, raped and forced into prostitution.

All this thanks to the operation “Unified Protector” that, informs the Italian Ministry of Defense, was carried out by NATO in 2011 for “the protection of civilians in Libya”.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Now People Are Dying from the Vaccine. “All Vaccinations Must be Stopped”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 05, 2022

OneAmerica is a large life insurance company in Indianapolis. The chief executive officer, Scott Davison just announced that judging by policy claims Americans of working age are suddenly dying in unprecedented numbers.

Stigmatizing the Unvaxxed and Unboosted. “Mass Formation Psychosis”. “You’re a Criminal Because You’re Unvaccinated”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 05, 2022

You know you’ve entered a twilight zone of insanity when a police officer tells you you’re a criminal simply because you’re unvaccinated. That’s exactly what happened the other day in Germany. The police officer insisted the unvaccinated man was “a murderer” because he “might infect someone,” and that he’s “not a human.”

Pfizer 6 Month Data Shows COVID Shots May “Cause More Illness than They Prevent”: Canadian Doctors and Scientists

By Arjun Walia, January 05, 2022

An alliance of more than 500 independent Canadian doctors, professors, scientists and health care practitioners have come together to form the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. Throughout this pandemic they’ve been committed to providing an evidence-based approach with regards to informing the Canadian public about all things COVID.

Analysis of Batch-Specific Toxicity of COVID-19 Vaccine Products Using VAERS Data

By Ontario Civil Liberties Association, January 05, 2022

The question of potential batch-specific toxicity of COVID-19 vaccine products is an important one that merits careful investigation.Indeed, history shows that dangerous “hot lots” have existed for past vaccine products.

The US Is Building, Rather than Tearing Down GTMO Prison Facilities

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, January 05, 2022

There seems to be little effort to hide the fact that the Biden Administration does not plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in his first term as he once declared. That pledge is but a whisper on the wind, much like the promises made by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

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, January 05, 2022

The signal of harm is now indisputably overwhelming, and, in line with universally accepted ethical standards for clinical trials, Doctors for Covid Ethics demands that the COVID-19 “vaccination” programme be halted immediately worldwide.

Dr. Robert Malone: What if the Largest Experiment on Human Beings in History is a Failure? “Surge in All Cause Mortality”

By Dr. Robert Malone, January 05, 2022

A seasoned stock analyst colleague texted me a link today, and when I clicked it open, I could hardly believe what I was reading.  What a headline.  “Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”.  This headline is a nuclear truth bomb masquerading as an insurance agent’s dry manila envelope full of actuarial tables.

Lawsuit Filed against CDC for Hiding COVID Vaccine Safety Data. “V Safe” Smartphone Application

By Mary Villareal, January 05, 2022

Nonprofit organization Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), an advocate for full transparency of the medical products’ safety and efficacy, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its parent entity, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for their refusal to make public the post-licensure safety data of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

EU: Number of Infections and COVID Deaths Hugely Manipulated

By Free West Media, January 05, 2022

Mathematician and statistician Pavlos Kolias of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece has checked EU data on Corona for anomalies. He did so on the basis of Benford’s laws, which expose anomalies in the distribution of the figures.

The COVID Crisis and America’s Democratic and Republican Governors. The 2022 Ballot

By Renee Parsons, January 05, 2022

There is growing speculation that with two dozen Democratic members of the House having already announced their retirement, an undeniable opportunity exists for Republicans to seize control of both houses of Congress during the 2022 midterm elections.

Dangerous Crossroads: Nuclear War over Ukraine?

By Eric Margolis, January 05, 2022

How many Americans are aware that a unit of the Florida National Guard is stationed in western Ukraine, of all places? It’s just a training mission, says the Pentagon. Right. Training how to pick oranges. This from the ‘invincible’ US military (I used to be a member) that got its backside whipped in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan.

Canada’s Attack on Libya Helped Spread Terrorism Internationally

By Asad Ismi, January 05, 2022

The NATO attack on Libya in March 2011, which was led by Canada and destroyed the Libyan government, state and much of the country’s infrastructure arguably makes Canada a terrorist nation, according to its own Department of Justice’s definition of terrorism, provided above.

The Farce and Diabolical Agenda of A “Universal Lockdown”

By Peter Koenig, January 04, 2022

The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric. There is no coincidence. There were a number of preparatory events, all pointing into the direction of a worldwide monumental historic disaster.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Awards and honours bestowed by States or private committees, republican or monarchical, are bound to be corrupted by considerations of hypocrisy, racketeering and general, chummy disposition.  From the Nobel Peace Prize to the range of eccentric and esoteric orders bestowed each year in Britain by Her Majesty, diddling and manipulating is never far behind.  You are bestowed such things as a reminder of your worth to the establishment rather than your unique contribution to the good quotient of humanity.  Flip many a peace prize over and you are bound to find the smouldering remains of a war criminal’s legacy.

The recently knighted Tony Blair is certainly not one to bother.  His name appeared in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list, having been made a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.  “It is an immense honour,” came the statement from the foundation that bears his name, “to be appointed Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, and I am deeply grateful to Her Majesty the Queen.”

Others begged to differ.  Within hours, a petition launched by Angus Scott calling for the rescission of the award garnered thousands of signatures.  (To date, the number is 755,879.)  The award, says the petition, is “the oldest and most senior British Order of Chivalry.”  It asserts that Blair “caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society.  He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent, civilian lives and servicemen in various conflicts.  For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.”

The evangelical Blair of war adventurism will be forever associated with Iraq’s invasion in 2003, though most current commentary avoids his role in promoting humanitarian imperialism in NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999.  (Never one to be too firmly attached to his ideals, Blair is currently advising the government of President Aleksandar Vučić who, as information minister of the Milošević regime, knew a thing or two in how to demonise Muslim Kosovars.)

The Chilcot inquiry into the origins of the Iraq War did not openly challenge the legality of the Iraq invasion in 2003 by Coalition forces but noted that Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to Western states.  It was also clear that peaceful options had not been exhausted.  The slippery Blair preferred another reading.  “The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit.”

Sir Tony’s performance before the Chilcot inquiry should be, for students of legal history, placed alongside that of Hermann Göring at the International Military Tribunal proceedings at Nuremberg in 1946.  The latter’s sparring with the poorly briefed US Supreme Court justice turned prosecutor Robert Jackson was eminently superior, but the recently ennobled one could play the trained politician wary of being implicated in past misdeeds.

Defenders of Sir Tony can be found in the ranks, all of whom essentially follow institutional logic.  The Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey insisted that calls to rescind the knighthood showed disrespect for the Queen.  Sir Keir Starmer, his crown as Labour leader looking increasingly unsettled, defended the knighthood as rightfully earned, Blair having “made Britain a better country”.

Others preferred to see Blair’s critics as incurably diseased.  “Blair Derangement Syndrome is a curious malady,” charges a smug Jack Kessler of The Evening Standard.  Kessler’s point is sensible enough: The entire honours system is slimed and soiled, so much so that getting upset about Blair as the “least deserving” of recipients is an act of meaningless stroppiness.

Consider the entire awards system to begin with.  “From major donors to political parties to chief executives of soon-to-be insolvent banks, even a cursory glance at the history of our honours system would suggest this is somewhat of a reach.”

Kessler’s parlour room logic presumes that a person party to what was described by the victors of the Second World War as a crime against peace can somehow be equated to rewarding banksters for financial misconduct or wealthy donors.  It certainly cannot be equated to King George V’s decision to make Lord Lonsdale a Knight of the Garter in 1928 in what was described at the time by a courtier as “sheer tomfoolery”.

Others are simply indifferent to the culpability of a figure who richly deserves a grilling in the dock of the International Criminal Court.  (So much for the liberal international order of things, including the rule of law.)  The Spectator, through a piece by Stephen Daisley, shuns the issue, merely acknowledging Blair’s shabby treatment of Parliament, his “unduly presidential” manner, or a “New Labour project” spun to bankrupt politics.  These are deemed valid criticisms but hardly an impediment to receiving a knighthood.

For Daisley, Blair Derangement Syndrome is a condition that must be rebuffed, rebuked and repudiated.  “Blair’s gravest sin, what he cannot and must not and will not be forgiven for, is that he won.”  He led his country “with moral imagination and personal fortitude and left Britain fairer, healthier, more modern and more at ease with itself.”  Pity the same cannot be said of Iraq or Afghanistan.

It should be noted that this line of reasoning is entirely acceptable to a magazine that used to be edited by the current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and who made the Labour Prime Minister its 2002 Parliamentarian of the Year despite him showing an utter contempt for Parliament.  “It is hard to think of another party leader who, for eight years, has exercised such unchallenged dominance of the political landscape,” Johnson declared at the award ceremony.

It was the classic affirmation that the Tories had, if only vicariously, won through the guise of one Blair.  Johnson, for his part, publicly mused that the award could aggravate the Cain-Abel relationship between Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown, “all other strategies so far having proved not wholly successful”.

The justifications advanced by Daisley have been used for leaders past who made the trains run on time, built spiffy, smooth roads for vehicles (military and civilian) and ensured that everything operated to a neat schedule, irrespective of whether death camps or slave labour were involved.  Many made the mistake of losing the wars they began, facing noose, poison or firing squad.

In the British context, where the benevolent, benign ruler assumes the force of majesty, the latitude for forgiveness is even greater.  Reducing colonies to penury, aiding the conditions of famine, initiating social experiments that distorted and destroyed, molested and plundered extant, thriving and sovereign cultures, has never been accounted for in a court of law, international or domestic.  In the absence of a hanging judge, it has been deemed fitting that any such figures be given knighthoods and rendered into statuary instead.

*

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]

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

On January 4, mass protests broke out in the richest post-Soviet country in Central Asia, in Kazakhstan. The formal reason for the protests was the increase in prices for liquefied petroleum gas on January 2 from 14 cents to 28 cents per liter. By comparison, the new price is a third lower than in Russia, 2 times than in Belarus, and almost 3 times lower than in Ukraine.

The protests first erupted in the west of Kazakhstan, in the cities of Aktau and Zhanaozen. By January 4, they have spread to major cities in the south, including the largest city of the country, the former capital of Almaty, as well as to the largest industrial city of the central region, Karaganda.

Earlier in 2011, similar events had already taken place in the city of Zhanaozen in western Kazakhstan. Then the authorities took quite tough and effective measures to pacify the protests, up to the use of armed force.

In his turn, Nursultan Nazarbayev, then-president of Kazakhstan, handled the work of the local media space and countered outside information influence. At that time, such influence aimed at disruption of the situation and was observed from the West, including Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Turkey.

This time, the narrative is developing in a very similar way, except that the headliners are information resources located on the territory of Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States and some Western European countries.

The protests in 2022, apparently unexpectedly for the Kazakh leadership, stirred up deep dissatisfaction of the population with the socio-economic situation in the country and the significant stratification of income between the new Kazakh elite and the bulk of residents. These reasons were fertile ground for the escalation and the proliferation of peaceful protests that began on January 2 into direct clashes with law enforcement forces by January 4.

Against this background, the current leadership of the country in the person of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev did not show the same firmness that Nazarbayev’s office did in 2011. On the night of January 5, it was decided the entire government to resign, and to introduce a state of emergency in two cities in western Kazakhstan and in Almaty.

Indeed, representatives of the ruling elite, including those from the government, have to answer for all that’s happening. However, the resignation of the entire government, i.e. a political act, is a sign of weakness, fear and misunderstanding. Instead of firing and bringing to justice targeted functionaries guilty of creating conditions for the current crisis.

After 2 days of protests, the protesters changed their economic demands to political and nationalistic ones. Yesterday, calls like “shal ket” (“Old Man Leave”) and anti-Russian appeals were heard, despite the fact that in the regions inflamed with protests, the Russian population on the average is only about 5%. These same slogans are actively spread by various social media platforms and mass media managed from the territories of Poland, Ukraine and Turkey.

In recent years, the ruling elites of Kazakhstan have been playing to the West, preaching a multi-vector approach, and with Turkey in the framework of the “Great Turan” project.

At the beginning of 2022, there are about 16,000 NGOs acting throughout the country, of which the most dashing are those associated with the Soros Foundation and Turkey’s soft power.

Apparently, the Kazakh elites learned nothing from the experience of Belarus, Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia, Libya, Serbia and other countries. We are likely witnessing a stage of the situation by some Kazakh elites, aimed at the final removal of Nazarbayev’s team from power and a sharp reorientation of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy towards the West and Turkey. This may explain the seemingly thoughtless decisions that led to the riots, and the fact that the quite strong Kazakh special services were unable to predict these developments.

On January 5, the protests continued and by the afternoon had spread to other cities of Kazakhstan, where local authorities are unable to effectively resist the protesters. Regardless of further developments, Kazakhstan will never be the same. The country will probably face a social collapse and even a Ukrainian scenario for its economy. The beneficiaries are obviously global financial elites and the West, led by the United States.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published by Global Research on July 31, 2021

.

 

Very important Interview

According to Dr. Charles Hoffe, Canadian medical doctor based in British Columbia:

“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc.

The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.”

“These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.

“These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.”

Below is the interview, with Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson, also available on  Rumble channel.

From Truth11.com, there is a presentation by Dr. Hoffe where he talks about the truth on mRNA, spike proteins and why so much people are developing blood clots after being jabbed with experimental nanotechnology in the Covid-19 vaccines. Click here to watch it.

*

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

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“I felt very alone during the case. No one was on my side except my lawyers,” stated Qing Quentin Huang, after the Ontario Superior Court recently stayed charges that he had illegally spied for China.

Huang worked for Lloyd’s Register, a subcontractor to Irving Shipbuilding, when he was arrested in 2013 and charged with stealing secrets regarding Canadian shipbuilding and marine strategy and offering them to the Chinese government. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. When the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) refused to release full transcripts of wiretaps used against him after eight years, the court stayed the charges.

Then there is the case of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, who were dismissed from the National Microbiology Lab in July 2019 after CSIS reported they represented a security threat. Qiu is an award-winning scientist who co-discovered ZMapp, an effective treatment for the Ebola virus. Two scientists who worked with Qiu at the Winnipeg lab continue to vouch for her integrity yet the government continues to stonewall, refusing to release the evidence against Qiu and her husband, supposedly on national security grounds.

And the list goes on. Canadian authorities recently charged a Montreal engineer with breach of trust for allegedly helping a Chinese aerospace company negotiate an agreement for a satellite station facility in Iceland. In mid-December, federal authorities charged Yantai Gan, a member of the Royal Society of Canada, with fraud and breach of trust for ties with a Chinese university. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Given the trend towards racial profiling, is it any wonder that the Canadian Academy of Chinese Professors and the Canadian Association of Chinese Professors, representing over one thousand Chinese Canadian faculty members in universities in Canada, have protested against recent CSIS-inspired guidelines for research partnerships? Their statement claims that the guidelines racially profile Chinese researchers as foreign agents and “poisons the Canadian academic atmosphere”.

The targeting of Chinese Canadian scientists has accompanied the rising influence of Canada’s spy agencies: CSIS, responsible for analysis and operations, and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), responsible for information collection. They are deeply integrated with the spy agencies of the “Five Eyes” alliance, comprised of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

Retired Canadian Brigadier-General James Cox described the Five Eyes as having an “affinity strengthened by their common Anglo-Saxon culture,” pointing to the settler colonial roots of this sophisticated, global spy network led by the United States.[1]

CSIS ratchets up

Not long ago, New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta declared: “We are uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the Five Eyes. We would much rather prefer to look for multilateral opportunities to express our interests.” Her statement came after it became apparent that the spy network was aspiring to play a coordinating role in policies regarding China. Mahuta reiterated her concerns a week later:

“The Five Eyes arrangement is about a security and intelligence framework. It’s not necessary, all the time on every issue, to invoke Five Eyes as your first port of call in terms of creating a coalition of support around particular issues in the human rights space.”

The Canadian government, however, has ignored such warnings. Instead, it has moved to strengthen CSIS, allowing it to engage in widespread racial profiling, reinforcing Sinophobia as part of its anti-China campaign.

A recent Public Policy Forum report indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic created “a pivotal moment” for CSIS, which now declares, “Spies are no longer wearing trench coats, they’re wearing lab coats.”[2] The agency has created new programs including “Academic Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement” and taken to social media, establishing YouTube channels and offering support against certain cyber crimes, all the while spreading fear of “foreign actors”—a term that apparently does not include the United States.

This overreach has now achieved critical proportions with the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada imposing compulsory CSIS self-screening by all Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Alliance grant applicants. This interference in research was developed by CSIS in collaboration with major research institutions including the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, Universities Canada, and Vice-Presidents of Research.

So far neither local faculty associations nor the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) appear to have taken up the issue of racial profiling of Chinese Canadian researchers. CAUT has in the past flagged the issue of Islamophobia and called RCMP and CSIS activities on campus a “threat to academic freedom.” Perhaps it is time for faculty associations to consider the problem of Sinophobia and racial profiling and the threat the Five Eyes, as a global settler colonial network, presents to academic freedom.

The ‘Five Eyes’ and misinformation

Given a huge boost with the US inspired “War on Terror” after 9/11, the Five Eyes have taken on aggressive new profiles with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes coordinating political statements on the part of the Five Eyes as it did recently in the case of the Hong Kong elections. Beyond coordinating the anti-China campaign, hacking, and the illegal monitoring of telecommunications, the heart of the issue is how built-in biases of US agencies can influence its allies and contribute to “fake news.”

Nowhere was this more evident than in 2003, when the recently deceased Colin Powell stood up in front of the UN Security Council to justify the invasion of Iraq based on falsified US/UK intelligence attesting that the regime of Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). That intelligence was produced by the Five Eyes, with the support of CSIS/CSE.

Former Canadian security official, Alan Barnes, recently revealed that in 2003,

“CSIS analysis of Iraq’s WMDs tended to support the claims coming from Washington. This is likely a reflection of the discomfort of CSIS managers and analysts at being out of step with the US intelligence community on a critical issue which might compromise their close operational links.”[3]

Advisors to then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien ignored the biased CSIS reports and advised Chrétien not to join George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard in their “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq.

Under pressure from the largest demonstrations in Canadian history opposing the 2003 invasion and the refusal of the UN to sanction military action, Chrétien followed his advisors’ advice to the great disgust of Bush and Blair. One can’t help speculating whether this experience has contributed to Chrétien’s continued insistence that the Canadian government should have ignored the US extradition request and released Meng Wanzhou to Chinese custody in exchange for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

The election of a minority Conservative government under Stephen Harper in 2006, however, marked the beginning of greater support for the War on Terror and for strengthening Canada’s spy agencies. This soon generated noxious tracts such as the Nest of Spies, written by a journalist and former CSIS officer, that made one of the earliest false accusations that Chinese Canadians were acting as “agents of the Chinese government.”[4] This was followed by the head of CSIS from 2009 to 2013, Richard Fadden, declaring that some elected municipal and provincial politicians were under the influence of “foreign governments,” by which he meant China. These suggestions that Chinese Canadians were “fifth columns” operating within Canada correlate closely with the racist campaigns accusing Japanese Canadians of being agents of imperial Japan prior to the Second World War.

Stephen Harper subsequently appointed Fadden as his national security and intelligence advisor in 2015. In the wake of a violent incident in Canada in 2014, the state’s powers of encroachment increased with the passing of Canada’s Bill C-51.[5] The strengthening of CSIS/CSE and its involvement in the Five Eyes amplified Islamophobia with serious repercussions, including:

• The Canadian government devoted over $50 million to settling legal cases related to the imprisonment and torture of Canadians Maher Arar, Omar Khadr, Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin, and Ahmad El Maati, carried out based on unreliable evidence provided by CSIS or the RCMP and then shared with foreign counterparts including the US.
• Five senior CSIS intelligence officers launched a lawsuit against CSIS alleging racism, homophobia, and Islamophobia on the job. Though settled out of court, the allegations point to systemic racism, which is hardly surprising given CSIS’ mandate.[6]
• The BC Civil Liberties Association revealed how CSIS illegally spied on Indigenous groups and environmentalists opposing the construction of oil pipelines in British Columbia.

Too often today, mainstream media picks up CSIS reports and repeats them uncritically, relegating their misdeeds and crimes to the past.

Australian researchers have noted how the enduring role of the Five Eyes “is overlooked in media coverage, as well as in the research fields of international relations, surveillance studies, and media, communications and journalism.”[7] This certainly holds true in Canada where conservatives, much of the mainstream media, and even progressive policy advocates too often accept a ‘national security’ discourse that normalizes the roles of Canada’s spy agencies and their global connections with other settler colonial states.[8] Such a discourse contributes to the politics of fear, feeds white nationalism, and reinforces support for settler colonialism globally.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau government also embraced the politics of fear, enhancing the role of CSIS, leading it to run afoul of its own mandate during the 2019 federal elections. According to the BBC, the Five Eyes has expanded globally and is actively and publicly intervening in politics: “In May 2020 the [Five Eyes] alliance agreed to expand its role away from just security and intelligence to a more public stance on respect for human rights and democracy.” Precisely then, CSIS and the CSE issued a joint statement in May 2020 citing an “elevated risk” to the cybersecurity of Canadian health organizations from “an increased risk of foreign interference and espionage.” The two organizations concluded their statement, noting “that the Government of Canada has a strong and valuable relationship with its Five Eyes alliance partners. We regularly share information with our partners, including the US, which has a significant impact on protecting our respective countries’ safety and security.”

Far from enhancing Canadian security, CSIS and the Five Eyes are enmeshing this country in a campaign of disinformation and propaganda regarding China reminiscent of the McCarthy era in the United States when government agencies went on a witch hunt against anyone who dissented from official foreign policy.

No one should be left alone, as was Qing Quentin Huang, to take on this formidable arm of settler colonialism.

*

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 Price is professor emeritus at the University of Victoria, author of Orienting Canada, and a member of the Advisory Board of the newly formed Canada-China Focus, a project of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and the Centre for Global Studies (University of Victoria).

Notes

[1] James Cox, “Canada and the Five Eyes Intelligence Community,” Open Canada, December 18, 2012.

[2] Catherine Lathem, “A Pivotal Moment: CSIS Steps Out of the Shadows to Protect Canada’s Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Sectors during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Public Policy Forum, November 23, 2020.

[3] Alan Barnes, “Getting it Right: Canadian Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, 2002-2003,” Intelligence and National Security, 35.7, (2020): 933-34.

[4] John Price, “From the Margins and Beyond: Racism, the San Francisco System and Asian Canadians,” in The San Francisco System and Its Legacies, ed. Kimie Hara (London: Routledge, 2014), 200-201.

[5] Reg Whitaker, Gregory S. Kealey, and Andrew Parnaby, Secret Service: Political Policing in Canada from the Fenians to Fortress America (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 431-520; Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, False Security: The Radicalization of Canadian Anti-Terrorism(Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015).

[6] Paul Weinberg, “Stuck on the Threshold of Reform,” The Monitor, January 2, 2018.

[7] Felicity Ruby, Gerard Goggin, and John Keane, “‘Comparative Silence’ Still? Journalism, academia, and the Five Eyes of Edward Snowden,” Digital Journalism 5, no. 3 (November 2016): 353-367.

[8] Pascale Massot, “Global Order, U.S.-China Relations and Chinese Behaviour: The Ground is Shifting, Canada Must Adjust,” International Journal, 74.4 (2019), 606;”

Featured image is from Canadian Dimension

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In a horrifying altercation, a German police officer denounced the humanity of the unvaccinated. This is but one sign that mass formation psychosis is at work

“Mass formation psychosis” is the explanation for how the Germans accepted the atrocities by the Nazi party in the 1930s, and it’s the explanation for why so many around the world support medical apartheid and the dehumanization of the unvaccinated now

The stigmatization of the unvaxxed is all the more irrational when you consider that the COVID shot doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus. “Fully vaxxed” individuals are just as infectious and “dangerous” as the unjabbed

While high-level officials continue to use the term “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” suggesting the COVID-jabbed play no role in the epidemiology of COVID-19, there’s ample evidence that the “fully vaccinated” have a relevant role in transmission and outbreaks

For example, in Massachusetts, 469 new COVID-19 cases were identified during July 2021. Of those, 346 (74%) were either fully or partially jabbed, and 274 (79%) were symptomatic. This proves the COVID jabs cannot end the pandemic, and may in fact be preventing it from dying out naturally

*

GERMANY 2021: A police officer calls unvaccinated people indirect killers and says they are not human. pic.twitter.com/iM2W7OPVXp

— Apex World News (@apexworldnews) December 12, 2021

You know you’ve entered a twilight zone of insanity when a police officer tells you you’re a criminal simply because you’re unvaccinated. That’s exactly what happened the other day in Germany. The police officer insisted the unvaccinated man was “a murderer” because he “might infect someone,” and that he’s “not a human.”

The bizarre altercation was posted on Twitter December 12, 2021, (see above). In response, the unvaccinated man tells the cop he’s the one who has “lost all humanity.” Indeed. Who thought we’d ever see the day when individuals are marked as “murderers” and “not human” based on vaccination status alone?

It’s beyond irrational. But then again, insanity does not obey reason, and according to professor Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychologist, the world has indeed been hypnotized into a state of mass psychosis.¹

“Mass formation psychosis” is the explanation for how the Germans accepted the atrocities by the Nazi party in the 1930s, and it’s the explanation for why so many around the world support medical apartheid and the dehumanization of the unvaccinated now.

You Cannot Comply Your Way Out of Tyranny

Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski, 94:
"And that's how it is done, step by step, slowly." pic.twitter.com/ewla4GCjeu

— Know Your Human Rights (@HumanRights4UK) December 3, 2021

The stigmatization and dehumanization of the unvaxxed is all the more irrational when you consider that the COVID shot doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus. Those who have received one, two or even three doses are STILL contracting the infection, and at ever-increasing rates, and are spreading it to vaxxed and unvaxxed alike.

Outbreaks among “fully vaccinated” populations, isolated on cruise ships, for example, have occurred on several occasions, proving the shots fail to prevent outbreaks. The COVID-jabbed are clearly just as “dangerous” and likely to “kill” their fellow man as those who are unjabbed.

When either decision — the decision to get the jab or decline it — results in you posing the exact same level of risk to others, how can anyone say that one is more dangerous than the other? Anyone still capable of clear, level-headed thinking will see that it doesn’t add up.

Unfortunately, most countries are experiencing a mass delusional psychosis. They have been manipulated into believing highly irrational absurdities. The same psychological operation was at work in the 1930s, when Jews, the old and infirm, and the mentally and physically handicapped were dehumanized and blamed as carriers of disease and other social ills.

In the short video above, Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski, now 94 years old, describes the incremental dehumanization and ostracizing that took place in Nazi Germany, ultimately ending in the Holocaust. Now, we stand before the same fork in the road yet again. Many, like the German police officer, are choosing the well-trodden road of repeated history.

November 20, 2021, The Lancet published a letter by Gunter Kampf, titled “COVID-19: Stigmatizing the Unvaccinated Is Not Justified.”² “In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19,” Kampf writes.

However, he adds, “There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission.” He goes on to cite statistics from Massachusetts, where 469 new COVID-19 cases were identified during July 2021. Of those, 346 (74%) were either fully or partially jabbed, and 274 (79%) were symptomatic.

The cycle threshold values used during PCR testing were also similarly low regardless of COVID jab status (median 22.8 cycles, which minimizes the risk of false positive results), “indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated,” Kampf notes. These data are clear evidence that the COVID jabs cannot end the pandemic, and may in fact be preventing it from dying out naturally. Kampf continues:³

“In the USA, a total of 10,262 COVID-19 cases were reported in vaccinated people by April 30, 2021, of whom 2725 (26.6%) were asymptomatic, 995 (9.7%) were hospitalized, and 160 (1.6%) died. In Germany, 55.4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals, and this proportion is increasing each week.

In Münster, Germany, new cases of COVID-19 occurred in at least 85 (22%) of 380 people who were fully vaccinated or who had recovered from COVID-19 and who attended a nightclub.

People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatizing parts of the population for their skin color or religion.

I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.”

Human Today, Not Human Tomorrow

It’s important to realize you cannot comply your way out of this tyranny. If you choose to get the COVID shot because you don’t want to be stigmatized, there can be no end to your compliance to future boosters, no matter what the cost to you or your family.

In short order — a handful of months at most — you will suddenly and arbitrarily be deemed an unvaccinated menace to society again, even though you’ve already had one, two or three kill shots.

None of that will matter. You get no brownie points for past compliance. At six months past your second or third dose, your status will go from green to red, from human to not human, literally overnight. You’re “unvaccinated” again, until or unless you get another booster. This cycle will continue until you’re dead. Are you game? Is that how you want to spend the rest of your life?

COVID Shots Keep the ‘Pandemic’ Going

More than 80 studies have confirmed that natural immunity to COVID-19 is equal or superior to what you get from the jab.⁴ This conforms to well-established medical science, so it’s no surprise. It’s as it should be.

But for the first time in modern medical history, natural immunity is being portrayed as having no benefit whatsoever. Even worse, those with natural immunity are being labeled as dangerous and are shunned and even fired from their jobs for failing to get a shot.

Only the jabbed are protected and can protect others, health authorities now claim — even though it’s those with natural immunity who are most protected and don’t pose a risk to others.

The reality and truth, though, is that natural immunity is long-lasting, protects against all variants and will not contribute to the creation of variants. The same cannot be said for the COVID jab. We now have clear evidence the shots offer, at most, six months’ worth of protection, after which the relative risk reduction drops to zero.

As just one example among many, a Swedish study⁵ published October 25, 2021, found that while the jabs initially lowered the risk of hospitalization, their effectiveness rapidly waned.

• The Pfizer jab went from 92% effectiveness at Day 15 through 30, to 47% at Day 121 through 180, and zero from Day 201 onward.
• The Moderna shot had a similar trajectory, being estimated at 59% from Day 181 onward.
• The AstraZeneca injection had a lower effectiveness out of the gate, waned faster than the mRNA shots, and had no detectable effectiveness as of Day 121.

This and other studies showing waning immunity were discussed in a December 9, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine interview.⁶ As noted in that interview, the Delta variant, which is significantly different from the initial SARS-CoV-2 strain, can infect fully jabbed individuals, and its ability to do so increases over time, as the effectiveness of the shot rapidly wanes.

Aside from waning efficacy, the fact that the virus is mutating within “vaccinated” populations also forces it to develop the capacity to circumvent the COVID jab. In short, the deck is stacked against those who rely on the COVID shot to protect them. In the long term, it’s a hopeless situation, as we cannot inoculate our way out of an endemic with a product that doesn’t prevent infection and spread!

Sadly, NEJM, rather than promoting science, toes the line of the official mainstream narrative and suggest boosters are the answer. They should know better, which raises suspicions that conflicts of interest likely impact their clinical judgment.⁷

Lindsey Baden, one of the interviewees, has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust — three institutions that more or less openly support medical tyranny and totalitarian rule by a biosecurity-based police state.

The Gravity of Our Situation

In the video above, Dr. Chris Martenson interviews Desmet about the gravity of our situation, seeing how it’s rooted in a grossly self-destructive psychiatric condition — and one that permits totalitarianism to flourish.

According to Desmet, the mass formation psychosis now appears so widespread that global totalitarianism may be unavoidable. He believes it’ll take over, as we’re seeing in a number of countries already.

The German police officer denouncing the humanity of the unvaccinated is a shining example of the brainwashing propaganda that supports and strengthens the totalitarian state, and allows inconceivable atrocities to be committed in broad daylight. The question is, what can we do to limit the damage?

First and foremost, we must continue to provide true and accurate information to counter the false narratives. Some who aren’t yet fully hypnotized may still be routed back to sanity. Speaking out can also help to limit the atrocities the totalitarian regime is emboldened to implement, because in totalitarianism, atrocities and crimes against humanity increase as dissent decreases.

We can also substitute fear of the virus narratives with narratives that highlight an even greater fear — fear of totalitarianism. That’s a far greater threat to you and your children, by far. Try to appeal to people’s memory. Remind them of the freedoms they grew up with. Do they really want to be responsible for leaving their children with zero freedom to think and act for themselves?

Also, join with other dissenters into larger groups. This gives the larger majority who aren’t fully hypnotized but too fearful to go against the grain an alternative to going along with the totalitarians.

Lastly, start building parallel structures within your local communities that address the four underlying conditions that allowed mass formation psychosis to develop in the first place, namely poor social bonding, lack of meaning in life, free-floating anxiety and discontent, and free-floating frustration and aggression.

A parallel structure is any kind of business, organization, technology, movement or creative pursuit that fits within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within the totalitarian world.

By rebuilding society, starting locally, into one where people feel connected and valued, the foundational psychological conditions for totalitarianism are undermined and ultimately eliminated. That’s the grand challenge facing all of us.

*

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

Notes

¹ YouTube Mattias Desmet on Our Grave Situation December 2, 2021

^2, 3 The Lancet November 20, 2021; 398(10314): 1871

⁴ The Burning Platform October 21, 2021

⁵ Lancet Preprints October 25, 2021

⁶ NEJM 2021; 385:e99

⁷ NEJM Conflict of Interest Statements

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There is growing speculation that with two dozen Democratic members of the House having already announced their retirement, an undeniable opportunity exists for Republicans to seize control of both houses of Congress during the 2022 midterm elections.  It can be assumed that those Democratic incumbents, after having defended an illegitimate President and his morally bankrupt policies, fear they will bear the blame for their party’s support of deplorable COVID lockdowns and their effort to destroy the American republic. 

The painful truth is that the Democratic party controls almost every major social and cultural institution in the country: the mainstream and social media, every federal government agency of importance including intelligence, national security, health and the military apparatus; academic, religious and science foundations and many opinion outlets.  What they do not control is the majority of the American people.

While control of Congress has dominated public discussion, what has not yet gained any real attention is whether blue governors will suffer election losses in retribution for their excessive COVID lockdowns, as Republicans may be expected to mount rigorous election challenges.  This scenario raises the question whether Republican candidates have the necessary mojo to square off against the Democrats, to call them out for their despotic policies and whether they are willing to challenge their own RINO incumbents.

Since COVID was identified, the level of lockdown depended on how blue was the blue state with the assumption that blue governors were assured of re-election no matter how diligently lockdown requirements were applied.  For example, will Democratic voters reward previously unelected and newly appointed New York State governor Kathy Hochul’s destructive COVID escalations just as California voters awarded Gov. Gavin Newsom for his extremism, despite his defiance of his own rules?

If this is a sign that Democratic governors who often introduced harsh requirements that shut down businesses and schools are electorally safe, the only conclusion is that Democratic voters are easily snookered into obeying tyrannical authority and that they more easily accept repressive dictates from the very governors they elect to represent them.

As COVID took hold, it was within the constitutional purview of every state’s governor to implement his own enforcement of COVID requirements and to issue an Emergency Executive Order to initiate his state’s response.  At the time,  the now discredited doctors Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, coordinator of the vice-president’s COVID Task Force, provided strategic advice on repression rather than treatment options to each governor that was in direct contradiction to President Trump’s message of ending the lockdowns and to focus on high-risk Americans.

On the other hand, many, but not all, Republican governors remained more distrustful of government meddling in their private health decisions and dared to question CDC  ‘science’ as Dr. Scott Atlas, who served as advisor to President Trump, described in A Plague on Our House. Hence, some of the most callous Democratic states are experiencing a population exodus with the ‘free’ states of Florida, South Dakota, and Texas accepting the influx.

To date, thirty-six governors will be on the 2022 ballot with twenty Republican governors and sixteen Democratic governorships up for grabs.  While the final candidate alignment is still in formation, eight incumbents are bowing out with seven being term limited.  The Hill has identified six incumbent Democrats and one Republican who are considered vulnerable in Kansas, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Maine.

Across the map there are Republican primaries with multiple candidates vying in almost every race against a Democrat incumbent with the Rs eager to challenge the Democrat record on mandatory lockdown requirements.

Of special interest will be replacements for Maryland governor Larry Hogan and Massachusetts governor Charles Baker, both elected as Republicans in Democratic states who both followed the Democratic playbook on COVID.  In addition, Colorado Democratic governor Jared Polis declared the COVID emergency over as at least three lockdown opponents filed as candidates in the Republican primary.  

The question on election day will be whether those Democratic governors will be held responsible for adopting more harsh measures on the population than necessary or whether those Democratic voters, many of whom are now better informed than they were, will take the opportunity to hold one of their own accountable.

If, in fact, the Dems are doomed to lose their collective shirts in 2022 by impressive margins, it is difficult to see how the party of Jefferson will not, based on its recent confrontational behavior, initiate some sort of full-blown crisis to disrupt any attempt to restore the country to its previous constitutional base.  Would it be outside the realm of possibility to expect Democrats having lost their once glowing halo with their bold hijacking of the country’s 2020 electoral process, continue their radical divisive campaign to do whatever is necessary in the interests of self-preservation of their power base?

*

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 American Thinker.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Ythlev

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

How many American soldiers will die in the battle for Luhansk? Or Kerch? Not 1 in 1,000 Americans could find these drab Ukrainian (formerly Russian) industrial cities on a map.

How many Americans are aware that a unit of the Florida National Guard is stationed in western Ukraine, of all places? It’s just a training mission, says the Pentagon. Right. Training how to pick oranges. This from the ‘invincible’ US military (I used to be a member) that got its backside whipped in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan.

No matter. The US, says President Biden, is geared up for a major fight in this obscure coal-mining region of the former Soviet Union. US Navy vessels and aircraft now challenge Russia’s Black Sea and Azov Sea borders. NATO units probe Ukraine’s air and land borders.

Washington is warning Moscow not to react to US military intrusions. And, above all, not to invade Ukraine – which was part of historic Russia and the Soviet Union until the USSR fell apart after a US-engineered coup in Kiev that created western-orientated Ukraine. Today, Ukraine is governed by a former TV comic whose career was financed by shady oligarchs and western interests.

President Biden has all but threatened war against Russia if Vlad Putin makes good on threats to attack Ukraine. Putin warns the US of his new arsenal of whizz-bang weapons, many of them nuclear. This reminds me of an Italian diplomat’s brilliant quip about the regional conflict over a barren Eritrean border region: ‘two bald men fighting over a comb.”

Ukraine is an economic black hole, with massive industrial pollution, titanic debts, unbridled thievery, and staggering corruption.

For Russia, Ukraine was its former industrial and agricultural heartland, and key component of the Russian state. Think of Ohio suddenly detached from America by pro-Trump rebels or the Red Fleet cruising the Great Lakes.

Moscow has no doubt at all that Washington’s strategic objective is to complete the amputation of Ukraine from Russia and then to go on tearing down what’s left of the current Russian Federation. Russia’s remote Far East would be a key target. No wonder Putin keeps making ever more dire warnings. He is the West’s target number one.

Yes, Moscow has moved about 80,000 troops to ‘NATO’s border.’ But this border is Russia’s own external border as well. Moscow has every right to do so.

Putin is no angel (see his repression of the Chechen) but he is quite right when he says that the West back-stabbed Russia when it orally promised not to expand NATO east in exchange for Gorbachev’s agreeing to Germany’s reunification and its inclusion in NATO.

Today NATO has pushed into Moscow’s former backyard. In NATO’s vanguard are Russia-hating Poland, the three Baltic states and Hungary – all of whom have ample reason to fear and mistrust Russia. All would be happy to see the US go to war with Russia. But the US has no strategic objectives and no logical war aims in southern Russia/Ukraine. A bridge too far, as it proved for Germany in the 1940’s, one of the toughest campaigns fought by one of Germany’s top generals, Erich von Manstein.

It’s very unlikely that Joe Biden or Vlad Putin want a real shooting war in Ukraine. We see lots of breast-beating but no real military action – so far. What neither side will admit is that they both have serious shortages of ammunition, spare parts, fuel, recovery vehicles and guided missiles. Neither Kiev nor Moscow can afford to replace weapons lost even in a short war. Bankrupt America is in no position to fight for Ukraine. The other NATO allies are paper tigers. Most important, Germany has no desire to fight Russia. Unlike the snarling Republicans in the US Congress, Europeans want no new wars. Their boys are not ready to die for Luhansk.

But an accidental conflict is always close and growing nearer.

*

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 Donbass Insider

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking 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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

OneAmerica is a large life insurance company in Indianapolis. The chief executive officer, Scott Davison just announced that judging by policy claims Americans of working age are suddenly dying in unprecedented numbers.

He reports that all life insurance companies are experiencing a 40% rise in the death rate. “Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.” These are not Covid deaths. They are deaths from conditions caused by the vaccine.

Brian Tabor, president of the Indiana Hospital Association, reports a corresponding huge increase in hospital caseloads, not from Covid but from all sorts of things, things known to be risks of the vaccine.

In other words, the extraordinary increase in deaths and hospitalizations is associated with the Covid vaccines.

For the past year and perhaps longer I have reported the findings and predictions of top medical scientists who are not on Big Pharma or Fauci’s payrolls. The findings of these scientists have been suppressed by Fauci and the presstitutes. In a nutshell, the vaccine undermines the human immune system and turns it into a weapon against your own body. The result is heart attacks and the range of adverse effects now associated with the vaccine. An exasperated and angry Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi explains the process here.

A number of experts have concluded that a large percentage of the vaccinated are going to experience disability and death. As Dr. Bhakdi explains, it doesn’t happen to everyone right away. Some experience death or disability immediately, some a month later, some a year afterwards, and some over a longer time.

As I understand it, the rate of death and disability of Covid vaccinated people will rise with time. If the process is rapid, one consequence could be societal collapse. If the process is slow, then those populations most vaccinated would experience numerical decline.

Clearly, the vaccination drive was a huge mistake, or an intentional population control operation. But now that it is known that there is more danger in the vaccine than in the virus, all vaccination should be stopped.

Censorship of renowned medical experts must stop so that we can escape marketing propaganda and come to an understanding of the true situation.

Covid was not deadly except for untreated persons with comorbidities. The current variant, Omicron, appears to be milder than the common cold, and as the vaccine does not protect against either, its use is completely irresponsible. Humanity will be paying the cost of the mRNA vaccines for decades to come.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The question of potential batch-specific toxicity of COVID-19 vaccine products is an important one that merits careful investigation. Indeed, history shows that dangerous “hot lots” have existed for past vaccine products. However, researchers investigating this topic should be wary of important artifacts that are present in the publicly-available VAERS data, which can skew analyses and lead to incorrect conclusions.

Several exploratory reports of potential batch-specific toxicity of COVID-19 vaccine products have been posted on the Internet (see here, here, and here) using data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database maintained by the US Department of Health & Human Services.

OCLA is researching the VAERS database, and wants to alert the research community to the following issues in the data:

• Approximately 1/3 of adverse event (AE) entries in the VAERS database have no associated batch label. This is a large number of missing batch label assignments.
• For the AEs that do have batch labels, the labels are alpha-numeric strings, which is a data format that is prone to artifacts, such as typos and the presence of multiple label-strings that should be considered to be the same label. The latter can occur due to substitution of lower-case for upper-case letters, inclusion or non-inclusion of a white-space character, replacement of a number by a letter (e.g., “B” versus “8”), etc.
• Examples of spurious batch labels that can be seen by scrolling down the list of batch labels at the link here are the labels “UNKNOWN”, “N/A”, “Pfizer”, “Na”, “?”, “Pfizer-BioNTech”, “unk”, “don’t know”, etc.
• An example of a set of multiple strings that should most likely be considered to be a single unique label are the labels “Ew0158” (1662 AEs), “EwO158” (47 AEs), “#EW0168” (1 AE), and “(EW0158)” (1 AE). These four strings are included as separate entries in the list at the link here. There are many such examples of spurious multiplicity of batch labels in the VAERS data.
• If the above-noted artifacts are not corrected for, then a histogram of AE-frequencies per batch label will include many label-strings that should not be included as unique labels, and these will have low AE-frequencies. Such a histogram cannot be used to infer the probability of low-AE (low “toxicity”) vaccine product batches, and consequently cannot be used to infer the probability of high-AE batches.
• An additional observation that has been presented (at the video here) is an apparent “linear decline in toxicity” vs. batch label for the Pfizer vaccine products, which appears when the batch labels are sorted alpha-numerically and plotted on the x-axis and the number of AEs associated with each label is plotted on the y-axis. This observation can be explained by the fact that Pfizer’s format for labeling their batches correlates with how the batches were administered in time – “E” batches were administered before “F” batches, etc. The VAERS data shows many more AEs and deaths in the early stages of the vaccine rollout than later in the rollout, probably because the vaccine products were initially given to older and frailer people (with the exception of some healthcare workers) and then to progressively younger people. Unlike Pfizer, Moderna’s batch-labeling format does not correlate with how the batches were administered in time, and this explains why no apparent “linear decline in toxicity” is seen for Moderna in the same graph.

The above-noted artifacts have the effect of rendering the currently-available batch-toxicity analyses unreliable, in that their graphical and distributional analyses do not support their stated conclusions. More careful analysis, accounting for the important data-artifact issues, is required.

OCLA researchers have performed detailed data analyses on the VAERS data, which corroborate the need for this cautionary note. OCLA researchers plan to publish their analysis soon, at ocla.ca.

Researcher Jessica Rose made essentially the same cautionary note (with supporting analyses) on December 1, 2021 (here), however her observations have since been largely overlooked by critical experts (e.g., here).

*

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

Featured image is from 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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

If the killing was meant to push Iran back, it has failed abysmally. Soleimani’s ability to maintain a modicum of stability outweighed any benefits that his death could have brought

Two years have passed since Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed by a US drone strike on the tarmac of Baghdad airport.

Soleimani was the brain behind Iran’s shadow war in the Middle East, and for years the counterpart of US Central Command (Centcom) leaders and CIA directors, as he boasted about in a text message he allegedly sent to General David Petraeus, the former US military commander in Iraq.

In the process, Soleimani became a local hero against western hegemony in the region, the main enabler of the resistance for large Shia constituencies spread around Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Yemen and Gaza. But he also crossed the sectarian divide, garnering significant support from the Kurds and other Sunnis. Millions turned out onto the streets of Tehran and his hometown of Kerman to see his coffin, in a collective show of grief not seen since the funeral of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.

For the West, Israel, their Arab partners, the Syrian opposition to Bashar al-Assad, and the Yemeni opposition to the Houthis, he was the mastermind of Iran’s many acts of terror. But has his assassination significantly altered the Middle East’s strategic landscape? Has his removal fulfilled the purpose for which it was conceived?

No imminent threat

More has come out about the assassination. At the time, the Donald Trump administration claimed that Soleimani was killed to pre-empt a major strike that he was planning. This has now been debunked. There was no imminent threat from Iran against US personnel in the region to justify the strike carried out in Baghdad on 3 January 2020.

More recently, Trump has hinted about Israeli manipulation behind his decision to eliminate the top Iranian strategist, adding unequivocally, however, that ″the Israelis are willing to fight Iran until the last American soldier″. Trump’s statement was ambiguous, but Major General Tamir Hayman, former chief of Israeli military intelligence, was not. He confirmed Israel’s role in the killing.

If Jerusalem had then nurtured any hope to remain shielded from Tehran’s wrath, Trump’s and Hayman’s words have dashed it. Israeli decision-makers should keep in mind that, as observed previously, Tehran’s response to Soleimani’s killing could take years to unfold.

The then prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, thought he was being clever in persuading Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018, and apparently twisted his arm in doing the dirty work of Soleimani’s elimination for Israel. However, it is becoming clear that neither decision served Israel’s national interest, not to mention that of the US.

Thanks to Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, Tehran is now closer than ever to the nuclear threshold.

Important developments

As far as the strategic landscape of the region is concerned, it is doubtful that the relative position of Israel or the US has improved. True, Israel has carried out a smart engagement policy with some Arab states, which has produced significant economic results, mainly with the UAE.

Important developments are also forthcoming with Bahrain and Morocco, but it is still too early to say if they will have a strategic impact. Until Saudi Arabia, jewel in the crown of Israeli normalisation with the Arab world, joins the Abraham Accords, the judgment remains suspended.

On the other hand, and enlarging the perspective, there have been some other important developments:

The US has humiliatingly withdrawn from Afghanistan, losing the game in Central Asia, with potentially serious repercussions in Western Asia, too; the Iraqi parliament has voted for the US’s complete withdrawal from the country; the Syrian government maintains and consolidates its grip on the useful part of its country, as once-hostile Arab leaders are now increasingly going back to Damascus; and Hezbollah continues to hold sway over the Lebanese political landscape.

Further, the Houthis, no matter how heavily Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, are close to winning the strategic city of Marib, one of the most important Saudi strongholds in the country. Hamas still holds Gaza – last spring Israel, for the first time in its history, saw its Arab citizens siding with the Palestinians protesting in the street of Jerusalem, leaving the chilling sensation of a possible civil war inside the country.

If the principals behind Soleimani’s killing bet on Iran’s self-deterrence, they miscalculated, as the bombing of the US al-Asad base in Iraq has proven – a far more damaging and accurate attack than it was initially considered.

In addition, US and Israeli naval warfare against Tehran, intended to stop oil supplies to Syria, has now ceased after Iran’s reprisals; joining the Abraham Accords has not prevented delegations from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from going to Tehran – these Gulf states both know how vital a non-aggression pact with their neighbour is. They also know that Israel cannot fill the vacuum left by the US partial withdrawal from the region, and they are increasingly at odds with Washington over the depth of the US security commitment.

And, finally, a new Iranian leadership is changing the country’s attitude to nuclear negotiation, as it casually disregards any western pressure against it.

Put it all together and it is difficult to argue that Iran is more deterred than it was before Soleimani’s killing.

His authority was undisputed

Soleimani represented a reliable interlocutor to call to de-escalate moments of crisis. He was the equivalent of the famous telephone number in Europe that Henry Kissinger searched for in the 1970s.

In a region that is so volatile, secure and confidential communication channels should be maintained. The IRGC’s commander was a master of the region’s highly complex and over nuanced dynamics. When it was necessary, he kept his turbulent proxies under control. Finding a worthy successor has been difficult for Iran, as the latest developments in Iraq have shown.

His authority was undisputed, as was his ability to present effectively and quickly any case to his top decision-makers in Tehran. The void he left has not been filled.

Any serious professional involved in the shadowy world of intelligence and asymmetric warfare in the Middle East will tell you that a person as important as Soleimani should not have been eliminated. His intrinsic value in maintaining a modicum of stability, and in avoiding dangerous miscalculations and escalations, outweighed any benefits that could arise from his death.

Only neophytes like Trump, or Israelis who had a short-term interest in conflict generation like Netanyahu, could go that far; and, if the intent was to push Iran back, they have failed abysmally.

The man who is talked about as Soleimani’s protege, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, is the new foreign minister of Iran, in the more hawkish Ebrahim Raisi administration.

‘Iran’s strategic capacity is now enormous’

In the words of US Centcom Commander General Kenneth McKenzie: “Iran’s missiles have become a more immediate threat than its nuclear programme… they hit pretty much where they wanted to hit… can strike effectively across the breadth and depth of the Middle East.” McKenzie chillingly added that Iran had achieved an “overmatch″ capability, that is it can fire more missiles than its adversaries can shoot down or destroy, making it extremely difficult to check or defeat.

“Iran’s strategic capacity is now enormous,” the commander concluded.

The room for a compromise on both sides to save the JCPOA is narrowing to months if not weeks, and the new Iranian leadership does not appear particularly concerned about such a perspective.

No matter how many times the Israelis “mow the grass“ of the Iranian nuclear programme with sabotage and the killing of Iranian scientists, the research and development Iran has gained over the past two years cannot be reversed.

Former top Israeli Air Force commander, General Isaac Ben-Israel, recently said that up to 10 years ago Israel could probably have hit effectively the Iranian nuclear facilities, but added: “Today, all the technology needed to produce a bomb is already in Iranian hands. The only question is whether Iran will decide to go ahead or not. And that’s just a matter of time.”

It must have been very tempting to kill Qassem Soleimani, but sometimes, especially in the Middle East, the more tempting option is not necessarily the best one.

*

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

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East peace process coordinator special envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, Italy’s ambassador to Iraq.

Featured image is from South Front

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The decarbonization terraforming of planet Earth is now under way. A new project has already been launched that will install mega machines across five U.S. states to harvest “life molecules” out of the atmosphere in an effort to shut down photosynthesis and unleash global food crop failures that destroy human civilization.

Farmland is already being seized in Iowa via eminent domain to build the mechanical infrastructure that will render Earth’s atmosphere inhospitable to plant life, animal life and human life, if it is allowed to continue to operate.

It’s almost like a scene ripped right out of the film Oblivion, where giant ocean harvesting machines sucked the water off the planet, abandoning the remaining human survivors on a barren, dead world that was ransacked by aliens. But in this case, the planet’s air is being stripped of carbon, the “God element” that is the very basis of life on Earth.

The terraforming project being unleashed against planet Earth right now is called “Heartland Greenway,” and it camouflages its true intent under the cover of “green” initiatives. The website for this project is HeartlandGreenway.com, and there, you’ll find admissions that it’s all about sucking carbon dioxide molecules out of the atmosphere and burying them underground where plants can’t use the molecules for photosynthesis.

An actual CO2 pipeline is being constructed across five U.S. states to transport liquefied CO2 and bury it underground. The pipeline cross Iowa and has branches in South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Illinois.

Farmers are powerless to stop the project, which is being pushed via eminent domain. As reported via The Hawkeye:

Des Moines County Engineer Brian Carter told the board of supervisors on Tuesday during the board’s regular meeting that Navigator Heartland Greenway LLC is pushing for a carbon capture pipeline to transport liquid carbon dioxide through five midwestern states.

An October letter to Broeker from the Iowa Utilities Board gives notice that, “Navigator has developed a proposal to build and operate a large-scale carbon capture pipeline system in your county that will convert carbon dioxide to a liquid form, then transport it via pipeline to a permanent underground sequestration site.”

“I don’t know for sure that we have a whole lot of say in this, county-wise,” Carter said.

Shockingly, no local media outlets bother to tell farmers that CO2 is the single most important molecule for plant growth. Globalists are literally seizing farmers’ land to erect a terraforming infrastructure that will ultimately make crops nearly impossible to grow.

This is an irrefutable scientific fact. It’s all confirmed in the process of photosynthesis (see below).

Stripping CO2 out of the atmosphere cripples photosynthesis, the foundation of carbon-based life on Earth

All plants need CO2 in order to carry out photosynthesis, the single most important biochemical process for life on Earth. Without CO2, all life on the planet ceases to exist.

Photosynthesis has three inputs: Sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. From these three inputs, plants produce energy to grow and flourish. Without CO2, all plants die across the entire planet.

All human beings (and animals) are made of carbon, and most of that carbon starts in the atmosphere. Through photosynthesis, the carbon is used by plants to make various molecules and proteins, and when humans eat plants or animals, they are effectively consuming the carbon that was once present in the air.

In other words, all human beings are made of carbon from the air, and without carbon in the atmosphere, human life cannot exist on the planet.

Carbon dioxide is the “God molecule” for life on Earth, and carbon is the “God element” that supports all life. When Earth had an abundant supply of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it was greener, wetter and more lush, with vast rainforests covering areas that are now deserts (such as many areas of the Middle East). When CO2 is depleted in the atmosphere, Earth becomes a colder, drier, more inhospitable planet with far less food production potential.

When NASA talks about terraforming Mars and transforming it into a planet that can support forests, animals, rivers, oceans and human colonies, the No. 1 molecule that’s needed to achieve this is carbon dioxide. The reason Mars can’t be terraformed right now is because it lacks carbon dioxide.

If you take the CO2 out of Earth’s atmosphere, you turn it into a planet more like Mars: Lifeless, cold, and completely unsuitable for human survival. You effectively crush human civilization on a planetary basis. The removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is planetary-scale genocide.

Yet this is exactly what the Heartland Greenway project aims to do, all under the language of “reducing your carbon footprint.”

Dacarbonization is depopulation

The war on carbon is a war on carbon-based life… and that’s us! “Decarbonization” is depopulation. Eliminating carbon means eliminating the human race.

Furthermore, the shutting down of fossil fuel pipelines is attacking the Haber process that uses hydrocarbons to transform nitrogen (in the air) into ammonia (NH3), making the nitrogen available to plants. About half the current world population depends on the Haber process in order to eat. Without hydrocarbons, literally half the world dies of starvation. Shutting down natural gas, oil and fossil fuels is a direct attack on the Haber process, which means fertilizer production gets shut down (it’s already happening). Without fertilizer, you can’t feed the world. And without low-cost hydrocarbons from fossil fuels, you can’t make fertilizer.

Mass starvation is already “baked in” for 2022, affecting most developing nations and even some first world nations.

Mass starvation will happen next year due to the shut down of fertilizer production. But terraforming the planet to remove CO2 from the atmosphere will take many years to fully achieve… perhaps even decades. They are launching the pilot projects right now, using printed fiat currency to fund it. Once the concept is proven, they will expand their terraforming machines across the planet, ransacking the atmosphere and depriving all plant life the molecules that are desperately needed to produce food, oxygen and biodiversity.

Pollinators will collapse. Food crops will fail. Human civilization will be utterly destroyed. Decarbonization is total war against life on Earth.

If we do not stop decarbonization, life on Earth will cease to exist as we know it.

We are under planetary-scale attack. Humanity must fight back or perish.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Nonprofit organization Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), an advocate for full transparency of the medical products’ safety and efficacy, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its parent entity, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for their refusal to make public the post-licensure safety data of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

The lawsuit was filed after the agency turned down three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to publish reports, submitted through the CDC’s “V-Safe” system.

The “V-Safe” is a smartphone application that uses text messaging and web surveys to give “personalized health check-ins” after a person receives a COVID shot. The “V-Safe” app is also supposed to allow individuals to report to the CDC if they have any side effects after getting a COVID-19 vaccine in “near real-time.” The system is supposed to be so effective that the agency said that depending on reports’ specifics, representatives may call to check on a vaccine recipient to collect more information.

The system was created because the CDC said that the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reaction System (VAERS) is not capable of determining causation, making it unreliable. At the same time, the agency noted that the COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under intensive vaccine safety monitoring efforts in the United States.

However, it seems that the CDC wants to keep secret the adverse reactions and corresponding numbers that have been reported through the app. In response to ICAN’s FOIA requests, the agency refused to report the safety data under the pretext that such information is not deidentified, or that it includes personal health information. (Related: California bill would require state to post links to vaccine injury reporting and vaccine injury compensation.)

De-identified data does exist. The CDC relies on private data company Oracle to collect, manage and house the data, as stated in its own document. The document indicates that as per Oracle’s internal policies, staff will not be able to view any individualized survey data, including those with personally identifiable information (PII). Instead, they will gain access to aggregate unidentifiable data for reporting.

Big Government protecting Big Pharma

ICAN is pushing for the CDC to produce the unidentified data in the same form that Oracle can access, but the agency has closed that inquiry. ICAN noted that the federal government is not only failing to comply with the FOIA, but also failing to provide the transparency necessary to earn people’s trust regarding the vaccines.

The nonprofit organization emphasized that the public deserves to have all information necessary regarding the vaccines that are being mandated, as many Americans are under threat of losing their jobs, being excluded from school and not being allowed to participate in society.

New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and Seattle, among others, have already put such laws into place.

Individuals who get injured by the vaccines will not be able to hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable because the federal government has given them and others associated with administering the shots legal immunity for any injuries that the vaccines may cost. Moreover, the vaccine manufacturers are immune from liability for willful misconduct unless the government brings this claim first.

ICAN stated in the lawsuit that comprehensive knowledge of vaccine safety is important for the public and that the government should remain transparent about the data. It stressed that locking out independent scientists from addressing the issues is dangerous, irresponsible, unethical and illegal.

The CDC is not the first government agency to be sued over documents associated with vaccine safety. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was also previously sued for over 400,000 pages of information regarding Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Watch the video below to learn more about the government’s COVID reporting system.

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Mathematician and statistician Pavlos Kolias of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece has checked EU data on Corona for anomalies. He did so on the basis of Benford’s laws, which expose anomalies in the distribution of the figures.

Kolias noted that the number of “infections” and deaths has been largely misrepresented throughout the EU.

Deviations from Benford’s distribution are a preliminary step for obtaining evidence for data manipulation. Interestingly, Kolias’ study did not receive any funding.

Dutch health sciences professor Sam Brokken spoke of a “statistical bomb”. Notably Belgium, the Netherlands and France scored poorly with a significant and highly significant probability value in terms of “infections” and a very high probability of deviation in the number of registered deaths.

Especially in countries with high vaccination coverage, the deviations were greater. “In short, yet more proof that the figures that reach us every day are not correct,” concluded Brokken. Overall, Denmark, Greece and Ireland showed the greatest deviation from a normal distribution.

Countries with a high vaccination coverage showed more data distortion than countries with a low vaccination coverage, he added. “So it becomes clear that numbers are driven to sell the policy.”

Fired for speaking out against Corona policy

Brokken was fired earlier this year by the PXL University of Applied Sciences in Hasselt because as a scientist he questioned the government’s Corona approach. “I was simply informed over the phone that I must stop my activities with immediate effect,” he said.

Not only has he been fired, but he is also being censored by social media companies such as LinkedIn. “It is impossible for me to share any analysis with you. Even a simple link to my website is blocked,” he said.

“What I say is what tens of thousands of virologists and experts worldwide say.” The researcher was nevertheless fired after a televised debate with vaccinologist Pierre Van Damme on 14 February on the Belgian talkshow De Zevende Dag.

“I have been dismissed as an antivaxxer by many journalists, but I am not at all,” Brokken said. “During the debate on De Zevende Dag, I spoke for exactly 1 minute and 49 seconds. I said that I had ethical reflections when administering a vaccine when you know that the general population only shows mild symptoms when they become infected with the virus. We are now at a mortality rate of 0,05 percent for people under the age of 70. Is it then justifiable that we are going to vaccinate an entire population? There is actually no need for that. The same goes for a flu vaccine. That too is only useful for people with a condition or the elderly.”

Sam Brokken pointed out that many experts had agreed with his view. “A month after that televised broadcast, an open letter was published and was signed by 41 000 virologists, immunologists and other experts proposing exactly what I said. Among the signatories are world authorities and professors from the largest universities. Even former Nobel laureate Michael Levitt is included. Why not consider an alternative approach?”

Dutch health authority prefers fear mongering

The Dutch Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) warned in the House of Representatives barely two weeks ago that the Omicron variant could potentially lead to 600 hospital admissions and more than 100 intensive care admissions per day, twice the level at which the last wave peaked. “It’s not all reassuring,” said RIVM boss Jaap van Dissel. He based his prediction on the number of hospital admissions expected in Britain.

As a result of these predictions, the government decided to institute a hard lockdown. Nobel laureate Michael Levitt expressed his astonishment, saying that the Netherlands has set the record for worst approach to Corona ever.

Levitt noted on December 19 that “the Netherlands peaked 18 days ago, as predicted”.

“The RIVM’s fear models again prove worthless and the government’s policy is completely disproportionate and very harmful. Can the cabinet at least admit its blunder and lift the panic lockdown immediately?” noted Member of Parliament Wybren van Haga.

Lawsuit to stop lockdown

On December 28, summary proceedings against lockdowns will take place. Lawyer Bart Maes has demanded the immediate lifting of the lockdown that is currently in force. “The judge is required to give a ruling immediately because of the urgent interest. After all, every day that this lockdown lasts longer, the material and immaterial damage increases,” said the lawyer.

“The fear surrounding Omicron is therefore purely based on models from the RIVM and, as with the Delta variant, they are miles away from reality, as is already apparent from information from countries such as South Africa.”

The lawyer further highlighted that as a result of the lockdown, many more life years have been lost than life years are gained. Professor Ira Helsloot and economist Barbara Baarsma have also calculated that the corona policy has extended the lifespan of Corona patients by an average of two weeks. However, all other people sacrificed an average of five weeks of their lifespan for this. The cost of this policy was 100 billion euros, according to them.

A report has also emerged that was drawn up by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate, which showed that an additional 520 000 life years would be destroyed if a lockdown was imposed. The government ignored the report.

Remember the photo of coffins from Bergamo, Italy, in March 2020, which terrified the world and contributed to the lockdown frenzy? It was also fake: pic.twitter.com/0tP5aQ4rQ2

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) December 27, 2021

*

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

Featured image is a stock photo from Pexels

A seasoned stock analyst colleague texted me a link today, and when I clicked it open, I could hardly believe what I was reading.  What a headline.  “Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”.  This headline is a nuclear truth bomb masquerading as an insurance agent’s dry manila envelope full of actuarial tables.

People frequently write to Jill and myself. People we have never met.  They call, they arrive at the farm by appointment or unannounced, they fill our email in boxes with their inquiries. They all want something; time, attention, an interview.  Many want to tell us about their fear, illness, nightmares, or (what often seems like) outright paranoid conspiracies.  And then, over time, these fears and “conspiracies” keep getting confirmed.  As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality.

One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely- while privately thinking about how easily people fall into this type of conspiracy ideation, and how I need to be careful to avoid going there when confronting so many public health decisions that appear either incompetent or nefarious.

At the time, I only knew of the WEF as the host of a big annual party in Davos Switzerland where the uber rich and the hoi oligoi of the Western nations went to watch Ted talks, drink the best wine, see and be seen.  Silly me.  What a long, strange trip this has been.  I doubt that even Hunter S. Thompson could have imagined it in his most drug and booze addled state.  Suffice to say, I nominate Ralph Steadman as official illustrator of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.  Or a resurrected Hieronymus Bosch.

But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state.

It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed.  And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.

Here is what lit me up in this report from The Center Square contributor Margaret Menge.

“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””

So, what is driving this unprecedented surge in all-cause mortality?

“Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths,

Davison said.“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.””

Take a moment to read the entire article.  Now.  Then let’s continue on, assuming that you have.

AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service”.

IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.

AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appear to be a true crime against humanity.  Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.

FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race.  All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments.

IF this report holds true, there must be accountability.  We are not just talking about running over the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and grinding it into the mud with an army of artificial intelligence-powered heavy infantry. This article reads like a dry description of an avoidable mass casualty event caused by a mandated experimental medical procedure. One for which all opportunities for the victims to have become self-informed about the potential risks have been methodically erased from both the internet and public awareness by an international corrupt cabal operating under the flag of the “Trusted News Initiative”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

I hope I am wrong.  I fear I am right.

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The US presidential doctrine is an odd creature.  Usually summoned up by security wonks and satellite personnel who revolve around the President, these eventually assume the name of the person holding office.  They are given the force of a Papal bull and treated by the priest pundits as binding, coherent and sound.

Much of this is often simple myth-making for the imperial minder in the White House, betraying what are often shallow understandings about global politics and movements.  Clarity and details are often found wanting.  Variety in such doctrinal matters, the Soviet Union’s veteran diplomat Andrei Gromyko noted in casting his eye over the US approach, meant that there was no “solid, coherent and consistent policy” in the field.

In the case of President Joe Biden, any doctrine was bound to be a readjustment made in hostility to the Trump administration, at least superficially.  But in so many ways, Biden has simply pulled down the blinds and kept the US policy train going, notably in its approach to China and its unabashed embrace of the Anglosphere.  There remain smatterings of nativism, doses of protectionism.  There is the childlike evangelism that insists on enlightened democracy doing battle with vicious autocracy.  This was, according to Foreign Affairs, the “everything doctrine”.

Such an approach would barely astonish.  Former US Defense Secretary Bob Gates did claim in his memoir with sharp certitude that the current President’s record, prior to coming to office, was patchy, proving to be “wrong on nearly every foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

At the time, a stung White House demurred from the view through remarks made by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden.  “The President [Barack Obama] disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment – from his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate, to his efforts to end the war in Iraq, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time, and has helped advance America’s leadership in the world.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter, writing mid-November last year, suggested that the world was finally getting a sense of “the contours of” Biden’s foreign policy, which was a veritable shop of goodies.  “He has,” she claimed in reproach, much along the line taken in Foreign Affairs, “something for everyone.”  For the China bashers, he has pushed “the QUAD” of India, Australia, Japan and the United States and created AUKUS, “a new British, Australian, US nexus with the … submarine deal, no matter how clumsily handled.”

A throbbing human rights narrative has also taken some shape, an approach neither convincing nor commanding.  Again, China features as a main target, being accused of genocide and grave human rights abuses, though Beijing can be assured that the sword of US military power will be, at least for the moment, sheathed from attempts to protect them.  What remains less certain is whether the same thing can be said about Taiwan.

The liberal internationalists can cheer the boosting rhetoric of international institutions: the gleeful nod towards the World Health Organization, the recommitment of the US to pursuing goals to alleviate the problems of climate change; the revitalisation of NATO, an alliance derided by President Donald Trump.

From Chatham House, we see the view that Biden’s “pragmatic realism”, which eschews sentimentalism to traditional allies while still respecting them, took European partners “off-guard” with Washington’s energetic focus on the Indo-Pacific.

Slaughter has charged that, if all are recipients of something, a doctrine remains hard to “pin down”.  She remains unconvinced by the stacked pantry, wishing to see a more concerted effort that embraces “thinking that shifts away from states, whether great powers or lesser powers, democracies or autocracies”.  Embrace, she commands, “globalism”, with an emphasis on cooperation irrespective of political or ideological stripes.  “From a people-first perspective, saving the planet for humanity must be a goal that takes precedence over all others.”

This view is far from spanking in its novelty.  With every change of the guard in Washington, opinions such as those of Slaughter become resurgent, often messianic urgings that claim to make things anew and see the world afresh.  In her case, there is a recycled One World quality to it, with the US, of course, as central leader.  As a presidential candidate in 1992, Bill Clinton insisted that it was “time to put people first”.  In accepting the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1996, he spoke of building “that bridge to the 21^st century, to meet our challenges and protect our values”.

How fine a vision that turned out to be, with the US ensuring its position as the sole superpower, with an amassed military able to strike, globally, any part of the planet with impunity and, as Clinton himself showed, frivolous, criminal distraction.  Washington continued to bribe and coddle satraps and client states, seeking janitors to mind the imperium and keep any power that might dare to challenge the status quo in stern, severe check.  Little wonder, then, that Beijing threatens such self-serving understanding.

The transcendent, humanity-driven view will not sit well in the Bidenverse, which remains moored in a brand of power politics that is Trumpism shorn, with a range of other antecedents.  The “America First” ideals of the previous president have been retained, though the howling about the risks of a complex world has simply been delivered in another register.    The open question, and one yielding a potentially troubling answer, is how far US military power will be used to shore up a shoddy, shallow doctrine that shows all the signs of the old.

*

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 Trending Politics

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Doomsday Clock has been sitting the past year at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to civilization-ending apocalypse. The United States has done little to quell doomsday apprehensions by ratcheting up tensions with China over Taiwan and its warships in the South China Sea, as well as with Russia over Ukraine, further NATO expansion, and missile deployment in eastern Europe.

Will the first-ever Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races help to put a damper on any potential conflagration?

An analysis of the statement seems called for.

Joint Statement: The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.

Analysis: This consideration is a delimited call for the avoidance of war; it is a call for “the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States.” It does not foreclose on the possibility of war with non-nuclear states. Since the US is the major warmonger on the planet, and since it fears getting militarily involved with a nuclear-weapon state, it only militarily engages non-nuclear states. Nonetheless, to be precise, the joint statement does not preclude the possibility of a war between nuclear states.

The call is for “the avoidance of war,” not for the elimination of war. How much more hopeful the statement would have been if written: “the avoidance of war, especially between Nuclear-Weapon States.”

Yes, the danger of nuclear war should be a foremost responsibility, but shouldn’t the total elimination of war everywhere be stated as one of the “foremost responsibilities”?

Joint Statement: We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.

Analysis: Since the main nuclear powers acknowledge that there are no winners in a nuclear war and that such a war should never be fought, then why hold on to weapons that must never be used?

What logically flows from affirming “that nuclear weapons … should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war”? Two points stand out: (1) nukes should not be used offensively, and (2) nukes can be defensive and serve as deterrence.

That nuclear weapons have a deterrence capability has been well understood by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The DPRK having a nuclear weapon arsenal strongly hinders a military action being launched against it because a nuclear retaliation would cause considerable destruction to any attacker. Arguably, the DPRK’s nukes are preventing war. It must also be noted that the DPRK has a no-first-use policy regarding nukes. The DPRK saw what happened to Iraq and Libya after they disarmed and were devastated by western aggression. Others likely reached a similar conclusion. This knowledge causes consternation among Israeli and American militarists who fear Iran developing nuclear deterrence.

If the five nuclear powers “believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented,” then ask yourself why? One obvious answer is the fear of a rogue, a psychologically unhinged actor initiating a nuclear attack. C’est possible. But mentally aberrant individuals are not confined to non-nuclear states. Any among us could suffer psychological symptoms during our lifetime, and when we reach an advanced age we become prone to cognitive decline. However, a rational person would hope that there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent any unilateral access to launching nukes by one individual or group of individuals. This is wishful given the 32 acknowledged broken arrows, six of which are lost and have never been retrieved.

The nightmarish possibility of a rogue actor is further stalemated by the deterrence factor of having nukes. Ask yourself: what if the USSR had never developed nukes or helped China develop a nuclear capacity? Would the lack of a deterrence have allowed the US to turn up the heat on a Cold War?

Joint Statement: We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments. We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Analysis: Article VI states:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The NPT was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. Although the number of nuclear-armed missiles has decreased, one might still ask whether this reflects a genuine commitment to the Article VI obligation, given the exponential increase in the explosive yield of nukes over the years? In 2020, Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, lamented: “The horror of a nuclear detonation may feel like distant history. Treaties to reduce nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation are being abandoned, new types of nuclear weapons are being produced, and serious threats are being made.” Barack Obama who called for nuclear reduction during his presidency ended it by authorizing a $1 trillion nuclear modernization. Did that indicate a commitment to Article VI?

Joint Statement: We each intend to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons. We reiterate the validity of our previous statements on de-targeting, reaffirming that none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.

We underline our desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all. We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all. We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns.

Analysis: The countries that strive for offensive military superiority ignore the wisdom and warning of the pacifist scientist Albert Einstein: “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage and resolution than are needed to prepare for war. We must all do our share, that we may be equal to the task of peace.”

Spokesman Stéphane Dujarric made known the sentiment of UN secretary-general António Guterres to the Joint Statement: “The Secretary-General takes the opportunity to restate what he has said repeatedly: the only way to eliminate all nuclear risks is to eliminate all nuclear weapons.”

*

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.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Protest against nuclear weapons (photo via Creative Commons)

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking 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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dr. Julie Ponesse sits down with Harry Wade, the former engineering student at Western University that was dragged out of his classroom on numerous occasions for refusing to disclose his Covid-19 vaccination status.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

When one travels nearly anywhere in Europe where Medieval government centers, including courts, remain, one will frequently see the personification of a sometimes blindfolded woman representing Justice holding a sword in one hand and a scale or a scroll in the other. As soon as human beings came together to form governments, one of the first demands has always for justice that is accessible to all and that is readily understood. That is not to say that governments have not corrupted the mechanisms that were set up to deliver justice to serve their own parochial ends, but it does demonstrate that the human desire for fair treatment under law has been strong for thousands of years.

Now, it seems, those who seek justice often find that justice is denied through various artifices that have been contrived to give the government greater control over what constitutes criminal behavior. It is an emphasis on punishment of those the government has decided to make an example of. One only has to look at the treatment of whistleblowers by the US government, most notably the cases of CIA veterans Jeffrey Sterling and John Kiriakou, where punishment was the objective to discourage anyone from exposing criminal behavior by those in charge.

Even though in theory whistleblowers are protected because they have come forward to reveal illegal activity by the government, in practice that protection is often notional. And then there are those instances where justice is deliberately perverted, as in the current case of Julian Assange, whom the United States government would like to extradite so he can be tried under the Espionage Act of 1917. But the actual charges against Assange are where things get murky. Assange is accused of having collaborated with Chelsea Manning to steal and publish classified material relating to clear evidence that atrocities were carried out by the US military in Iraq and then covered up. And perhaps more to the point in political terms, Assange is also being accused of having participated in the theft of the Hillary Clinton emails in 2016. It should be pointed out that the Federal government has not provided any actual evidence of either alleged crime.

A British high court justice has approved Washington’s extradition demand re Assange but the case has now been moved to a final effort to appeal the ruling. It is likely that Assange will be convicted if he is sent to the US in spite of the fact that his only crime was that he was an effective journalist doing what good journalists do. His life has been destroyed in any event. He spent 82 months in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London having been granted asylum status and is now in solitary confinement in the top security Belmarsh prison, where Britain sends its terrorists. He has been in Belmarsh for 31 months and recently suffered a stroke. It is rather cruel and unusual punishment for someone who has not been convicted of anything.

It is perhaps not unreasonable to examine more closely the shenanigans related to the criminal justice system as it is mismanaged by today’s “democratic” governments to include the United States and Britain. Indeed, one might consider that the games being played could be summed up by the recently coined expression “lawfare.” The word came into common use after a 2001 essay by Colonel Charles J. Dunlap written for Harvard’s Carr Center. Dunlap defined lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war” including “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior opponent. It is “a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective” as well as a “cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents.” In the United States, lawfare has been particularly associated with the concept of “universal jurisdiction,” that is, one nation or an international organization hosted by that nation reaching out to seize and prosecute officials of another. Or, as in Assange’s case, an Australian citizen residing in Britain being extradited for trial by Washington for an alleged theft of classified information by an American whistleblower.

Indeed, one of the most disturbing aspects of American foreign policy since 9/11 has been the assumption that decisions made by the United States are binding on the rest of the world, best exemplified by President George W. Bush’s warning that “there was a new sheriff in town.” Apart from time of war, no other nation has ever sought to prevent other nations from trading with each other, nor has any government sought to punish foreigners using sanctions with the cynical arrogance demonstrated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The United States uniquely seeks to penalize other sovereign countries for alleged crimes that did not occur in the US and that did not involve American citizens, while also insisting that all nations must comply with whatever penalties are meted out by Washington. At the same time, the US government demonstrates its own gross hypocrisy by claiming sovereign immunity whenever foreigners or even American citizens seek to use the courts to hold it accountable for its many crimes.

Perhaps it comes as no surprise that the nation that has officially and openly incorporated lawfare into its conduct of foreign policy is Israel. Its lawfare center Shurat HaDin is in part financed by the Israeli government and has gotten involved in numerous court cases in the United States, where it finds a friendly judicial audience in New York City. The ability to sue in American courts for redress of either real or imaginary crimes has led to the creation of a lawfare culture in which lawyers seek to bankrupt an opponent through both legal expenses and damages. To no one’s surprise, Shurat HaDin is a major litigator against entities that Israel disapproves of. It boasts on its website how it uses the law to bankrupt opponents.

The Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan has become the clearing house for suing the pants off of any number of foreign governments and individuals with virtually no requirement that the suit have any merit beyond claims of “terrorism.” In February 2015, a lawsuit initiated by Shurat HaDin led to the conviction of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization of liability for terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2004. The New York Federal jury awarded damages of $218.5 million, but under a special feature of the Anti-Terrorism Act the award was automatically tripled to $655.5 million. Shurat HaDin claimed sanctimoniously that it was “bankrupting terror.”

Another legal victory for Israel and its friends occurred in a federal district court in the District of Columbia on June 1, 2020 where Syria and Iran were held to be liable for the killing of American citizens in Palestinian terrorist attacks that have taken place in Israel. Judge Randolph D. Moss ruled that Americans wounded and killed in seven attacks carried out by Palestinians inside the Jewish state were eligible for damages from Iran and Syria because they provided “material support” to militant groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Interestingly, one might observe that the United States is becoming more like Israel in its employment of lawfare. It sanctions foreign entities based on what might be hearsay information and then sets up a mechanism to fine or imprison anyone who provides anything that might be construed as “material support” to them. Some readers might be aware of a recent action by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) directed against Russian-based news and analysis site Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF). The site is admittedly not friendly to current United States foreign policy, but the Biden regime seems to believe that it is a malignant instrument of the Kremlin’s intelligence service based on what appears to be no evidence whatsoever apart from that clear hostility to US policies. During the first week in November the Treasury Department issued a “cautionary letter” dated October 15^th to me and a number of other Americans who were contributing regular articles to SCF. The letters were hand delivered by FBI Special Agents.

The letter was quite bizarre, describing how SCF was now a “designated entity pursuant to Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018” which in turn relied on an April 15^th designation by OFAC. “As a result of OFAC’s designation, unless otherwise authorized or exempt, all property and interests in property of SCF that are subject to US jurisdiction are blocked, and US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.”

The letter went on to indicated that SCF has “interfered in or undermined public confidence in United States elections, as set forth in the Foreign Interference in US Elections Sanctions regulations…and Executive orders issued under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act…Under applicable law, each violation of the above referenced regulations is subject to a statutory maximum civil monetary penalty of up to the greater of $311,562 or twice the value of the underlying transaction.”

The clear intent of the Treasury letter and the legislation that it represents is to prevent American writers and journalists from contributing to foreign websites and publications if those sites and journals are critical of United States policies. The threat of a grossly punitive fine is a warning that one will be bankrupted or even imprisoned if the letter is ignored, which is lawfare at its most effective. It would appear that all of the US-based journalists involved have therefore cut their ties with SCF.

I would make several observations regarding this blatant move to eliminate or at least control freedom of speech in the United States. First, I would invite readers to go to the SCF site, where one will find numerous highly respectable international journalists and writers, including a number of former senior diplomats. Second, as a former intelligence officer who actually ran media operations for CIA in Europe and the Middle East, I absolutely reject the description of SCF as an intelligence front. Intelligence operations are based on absolute control of the agents by the directing authority, which would mean that SCF stories would have had to be scripted and designed to influence opinion in a certain way. I contributed to SCF a weekly column for nearly three years and no one ever suggested that I write on a certain subject or slant the reporting. I always went for the best story. That kind of freedom is not how an intelligence agency operates, which is a point I also made to the FBI couriers.

Finally, I would observe that the real damage is being done through the employment of government driven lawfare against ordinary citizens who are exercising their right of free speech. It is easy to claim that a foreign news service is “undermining confidence in US elections” as it is a charge that one need not have to prove. Indeed, it is unprovable and it is a weapon that can be used to manage dissent and to narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. And it serves to cover up an unpleasant reality, which is that American elections have been tainted by the actions of two groups referred to as the Democrats and the Republicans aided by a lickspittle media, not by someone sitting in an office somewhere in the Kremlin.

*

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 councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

There seems to be little effort to hide the fact that the Biden Administration does not plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in his first term as he once declared. That pledge is but a whisper on the wind, much like the promises made by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. According to a recent New York Times report by Carol Rosenberg, who has been been covering the infamous GTMO for the 20 years since it opened, the military is building a new, secret courtroom on the premises — which won’t be completed until 2023.

It’s hard to say what is the most disturbing thread in her report, which came out right before the New Year and of course made no waves. (It must be quite difficult to dedicate one’s journalistic career to an issue that most Americans have lost all interest in. The torture and detention of other human beings without charge appeared to go out with the government spying illegally on Americans — no one seems to care) According to Rosenberg, the military is building a second courtroom to handle more than one case simultaneously, as the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is still going on. That sort of sounds legit considering there are five others at the prison today charged and awaiting trials, too. However, she points out, this new courtroom will have no gallery for visitors, with proceedings broadcast for journalists and observers on closed circuit with a 40 second delay in a remote room so judges can cut off anything “classified” said during trials:

Only people with a secret clearance, such as members of the intelligence community and specially cleared guards and lawyers, will be allowed inside the new chamber.

As a workaround, the court staff is designing a “virtual gallery with multiple camera angles simultaneously displayed,” said Ron Flesvig, a spokesman for the Office of Military Commissions. The public would be escorted there to watch the proceedings, streamed on a 40-second delay.

During recesses in the current courtroom, lawyers and other court participants often engage with reporters and relatives of victims of terror attacks, routine contact that would be lost with the “virtual gallery.” So would the ability for a sketch artist to observe the proceedings live.

“I’ve observed trial proceedings in person at Guantánamo. The chipper ‘secrecy’ imposed by the military is insulting, anti-democratic, and cowardly,” tweeted Michael Bronner, producer of the 2021 film The Mauritanian, which portrays the plight of GTMO detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi (incidentally, the former 14-year prisoner spoke at a special Quincy Institute panel on June 8 on the subject of the facility’s closure). “The entire enterprise makes a mockery out of what the US pretends to stand for,” added Bronner.

Rosenberg said this was the latest in a serious of moves to make the court and the prison itself less transparent to the public:

For example, for 17 years the military routinely took visiting journalists to the detention facilities where most captives are kept, but required them to delete photographs that showed cameras, gates and other security procedures. Then, the military undertook a consolidation that moved Mr. (Khalid Sheikh) Mohammed and other detainees who were held by the C.I.A. from a secret site to the maximum-security portion of those once showcase facilities — and declared the entire detention zone off limits to journalists.

Their empty, formerly C.I.A.-controlled prison is off limits to reporters too. Defense lawyers who are seeking a preservation order on the site describe it as a rapidly deteriorating facility that was clearly unfit for the prisoners and their guards. One military lawyer who visited there recently described carcasses of dead tarantulas in the empty cellblocks.

The other obvious disturbing angle is that despite earlier reports that the Biden Administration was “quietly moving to close the prison,” Rosenberg’s report indicates no such thing. Either they have hit a brick wall with Congress and/or those efforts have been suspended, but as I wrote in October, even those prisoners cleared for release have zero-to-no chance of getting out anytime soon. Currently there are 27 men at the scrubby island base who are not charged with any crime and/or awaiting repatriation (compared to the 10 awaiting trail and two already convicted). The administration and military rules have made it virtually impossible for the men who have been cleared to be placed in another country at this point.

To be fair, Congress has shown no willingness to budge on the issue of trying the charged in federal courts, even though we know they would be just as secure, cost the taxpayer less, and adjudicate faster. However, that does not explain why they are making it less transparent, and why there has been no progress on resolving the abomination of keeping 27 souls locked away indefinitely without charge. The administration points to the elaborate legal process set up by the military tribunal system, but that is not enough. Moral courage is in order here, and it seems this administration has as much as any of its predecessors in this regard. Very little.

*

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

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty ruled Saturday that the Biden administration unconstitutionally bypassed Congress when ordering workers in Head Start programs to take the injection by Jan. 31, and for students 2 years or older to be masked indoors and outdoors.

“If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to make laws, then this country is no longer a democracy — it is a monarchy,” Doughty wrote.

“This two-year pandemic has fatigued the entire country. However, this is not an excuse to forego the separation of powers,” Doughty, an appointee of then-President Donald Trump, continued. “If the walls of separation fall, the system of checks and balances created by the founders of this country will be destroyed.”

“In the words of Thomas Paine, ‘Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.’ Common Sense (1776). This issue will certainly be decided by a higher court than this one. This issue is important. The separation of powers has never been so thin,” he concluded.

The ruling applies to a lawsuit from 24 states: Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the ruling in a news release, calling Biden’s effort to mask children “nonsensical and damaging.”

“This victory will help ensure that numerous Head Start programs will continue to operate rather than have to fire teachers and cut back services to children,” Marshall wrote. “And this win will forestall the nonsensical and damaging practice of forcing masks on two-year-olds.”

Separately, a Texas judge issued a similar ruling for the Head Start program in the Lone Star State on Friday, calling Biden’s mandate “arbitrary and capricious.”

The judgement comes after a series of major legal defeats for Biden in his crusade to impose vaccines on all Americans, which will be soon taken up by the Supreme Court.

Read the judge’s ruling here.

*

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

Featured image is from 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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

1. There is a 65% increased risk of non-flu respiratory illness in populations that get the flu vaccine.

Although some studies suggest positive effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of illness caused by flu viruses, that benefit is potentially outweighed by the negative effects of the flu vaccine on the incidence of non-flu respiratory illness.¹To address the concern among patients that the flu vaccine causes illness (i.e., acute respiratory illness), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a three-year study,² published in Vaccine, to analyze the risk of illness after flu vaccination compared to the risk of illness in unvaccinated individuals.

The study, which included healthy subjects, found a 65% increased risk of non-flu acute respiratory illness within 14 days of receiving the flu vaccine. The authors state, “Patients’ experiences of illness after vaccination may be validated by these results.” The most common non-flu pathogens found were rhinovirus, enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and coronaviruses.

This is important because although flu vaccines target three or four strains of flu virus,³ over 200 different viruses cause illnesses that produce the same symptoms—fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose—as influenza,⁴ and more than 85% of acute respiratory illnesses do not involve the flu.⁵

2. Studies show the flu vaccine doesn’t reduce demand on hospitals.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) funded a study⁶ to measure the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination on hospitalization among the elderly. The study analyzed 170 million episodes of medical care and found that “no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations.”

In addition, a 2018 Cochrane review⁷ of 52 clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of influenza vaccines did not find a significant difference in hospitalizations between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults. Instead, the reviewers found “low-certainty evidence that hospitalization rates and time off work may be comparable between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults.”

Furthermore, the Mayo Clinic conducted a case-control study⁸ to analyze the effectiveness of the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) in preventing flu hospitalization in children 6 months to 18 years old. The study evaluated the risk of hospitalization in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children over an eight-year period. The authors state: “TIV is not effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalization in children.” Instead, “[W]e found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV vaccine.”

3. Studies show the flu vaccine doesn’t prevent the spread of the flu.

Households are thought to play a major role in community spread of influenza, and there has been a long history of analyzing family households to study the incidence and transmission of respiratory illnesses of all severities. As such, the CDC funded a study⁹ of 1,441 participants, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, in 328 households. The study evaluated the flu vaccine’s ability to prevent community-acquired influenza (household index cases) and influenza acquired in people with confirmed household exposure to the flu (secondary cases). Transmission risks were determined and characterized.

In conclusion, the authors state: “There was no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced.”^9,10

Furthermore, a systematic review⁵ of 50 influenza vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states: “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

4. The flu vaccine fails to prevent the flu about 65% of the time.

The CDC conducts studies to assess the effects of flu vaccination each flu season to help determine if flu vaccines are working as intended.¹¹ As circulating flu viruses are constantly changing (primarily due to antigenic drift mutations),¹² flu vaccines are reformulated regularly based on a “best guess” of which viruses might circulate during the coming flu season.³ The CDC states: “CDC monitors vaccine effectiveness annually through the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) Network, a collaboration with participating institutions in five geographic locations… [A]nnual estimates of vaccine effectiveness give a real-world look at how well the vaccine protects against influenza caused by circulating viruses each season.”¹³

Data from the CDC’s Influenza VE Network indicate a 65% vaccine failure rate between 2014 and 2018 (Fig. 1).¹¹

5. Repeat doses of the flu vaccine may increase the risk of flu vaccine failure.

Studies have observed that influenza vaccines have low effectiveness in individuals who are vaccinated in two consecutive years.⁹ A review of 17 influenza vaccine studies published in Expert Review of Vaccines states, “The effects of repeated annual vaccination on individual long-term protection, population immunity, and virus evolution remain largely unknown.”¹⁴

6. Death from influenza is rare in children.

Before the widespread use of the influenza vaccine in children, between 2000 and 2003, each year kids age 18 and younger had about 1 in 1.26 million or 0.00008% chance of dying from the flu.¹⁵ In a 2004 report, the CDC stated, “Deaths from influenza are uncommon among children with and without high-risk conditions.”¹⁶

7. Studies show the flu vaccine doesn’t reduce deaths from pneumonia and flu. 

The National Vaccine Program Office, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded a study¹⁷ to examine flu mortality over the period of 33 years (1968–2001). The study found no decrease in flu mortality associated with the widespread use of the influenza vaccine. The authors state: “We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group… [W]e conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

Furthermore, the National Institute of Health (NIH) funded a study⁶ to measure the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination on mortality among the elderly. The study analyzed 7.6 million deaths and found “a sharp increase in influenza vaccination rates at age 65 years with no matching decrease in hospitalization or mortality rates.”

8. Studies show patients don’t benefit from the vaccination of healthcare workers.

A review¹⁸ of more than 30 influenza vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states, “Our review findings have not identified conclusive evidence of benefit of HCW [healthcare workers] vaccination programs on specific outcomes of laboratory-proven influenza, its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalization or death due to lower respiratory tract illness), or all cause mortality in people over the age of 60.” The authors conclude, “This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza.”  In addition, “There is little evidence to justify medical care and public health practitioners mandating influenza vaccination for healthcare workers.”

9. Flu vaccine mandates are not science-based.

A Cochrane Vaccines Field analysis¹⁹ evaluated studies measuring the benefits of flu vaccination. The analysis, published in the BMJ, concludes: “The large gap between policy and what the data tell us (when rigorously assembled and evaluated) is surprising… Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured… Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken.”

*

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

Notes

1. Dierig A, Heron LG, Lambert SB, Yin JK, Leask J, Chow MY, Sloots TP, Nissen MD, Ridda I, Booy R. Epidemiology of respiratory viral infections in children enrolled in a study of influenza vaccine effectiveness. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2014 May;8(3):293-301. Epub 2014 Jan 31.
2. Rikin S, Jia H, Vargas CY, Castellanos de Belliard Y, Reed C, LaRussa P, Larson EL, Saiman L, Stockwell MS. Assessment of temporally related acute respiratory illness following influenza vaccination. Vaccine. 2018 Apr 5;36(15):1958-64.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Selecting viruses for the seasonal influenza vaccine; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm.
4. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 13;(3):CD001269.
5. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269.
6. Anderson ML, Dobkin C, Gorry D. The effect of influenza vaccination for the elderly on hospitalization and mortality: an observational study with a regression discontinuity design. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7;172(7):445-52.
7. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Ferroni E, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 1;2(2):CD001269.
8. Joshi AY, Iyer VN, Hartz MF, Patel AM, Li JT. Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):e23-7.
9. Ohmit SE, Petrie JG, Malosh RE, Cowling BJ, Thompson MG, Shay DK, Monto AS. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the community and the household. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 May;56(10):1363.
10. Physicians for Informed Consent. Newport Beach (CA): Physicians for Informed Consent. Vaccines: what about immunocompromised schoolchildren? Dec 2019. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/immunocompromised-schoolchildren/rgis/.
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC seasonal flu vaccine effectiveness studies; [cited 2020 Apr 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.htm.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How the flu virus can change: ‘drift’ and ‘shift’; [cited 2020 Aug 17]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How flu vaccine effectiveness and efficacy are measured; [cited 2020 May 14]. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm.
14. Belongia EA, Skowronski DM, McLean HQ, Chambers C, Sundaram ME, De Serres G. Repeated annual influenza vaccination and vaccine effectiveness: review of evidence. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2017 Jul;16(7):723,733.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC wonder: about underlying cause of death, 1999-2018; [cited 2020 May 2]. https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html; query for death from influenza, 2000-2003. Between 2000 and 2003, there were 61 annual deaths from influenza out of 77 million children age 18 and younger, about 1 death in 1.26 million.
16. Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004 May 28;53(RR-6):1-40.
17. Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Feb 14;165(3):265-72.
18. Thomas RE, Jefferson T, Lasserson TJ. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 2;(6):CD005187.
19. Jefferson T. Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence. BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):912-5.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

During a telephone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, US President Joe Biden promised that his country and its allies would give a decisive response to any “invasion” attempt by Russia and reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The two leaders expressed support for simultaneous diplomatic efforts at the upcoming bilateral dialogue on strategic stability through the mechanisms of the NATO-Russia Council and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Biden also stressed the commitment of the US and its allies to the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

Negotiations on security guarantees will take place in Geneva on January 9-10 with the participation of Russia and the US and in Vienna on January 13 with the participation of Moscow and the OSCE. Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin will monitor their progress and give instructions to the negotiating teams, with both presidents’ hoping to enable a new era in Russo-American relations, according to their own visions of course.

However, Biden’s strong diplomatic commitment to Ukraine comes as authorities in Kiev decided to stop the water supply to the Luhansk Peoples Republic from filtering stations due to a supposed accident. It is noted that the water supply was stopped on the evening of January 2 for supposed damage to the main water pipe from the filtering station. As a result, water practically ceased to flow to the cities and oblasts of Perevalsky, Alchevsk, Bryanka, Kirovsk, Stakhanov and Pervomaisk.

Earlier, the deputy of the People’s Council of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, Vladislav Berdichevsky, said that Ukraine could poison the drinking water that comes to the Donbass region from territories controlled by Kiev’s military forces.

Meanwhile, Ukraine will be forced to steal Russian gas from the transit stream if Naftogaz does not provide sufficient imports and reserves, according to Andrei Kobolev, the former head of the state-owned and largest Ukrainian national oil and gas company. In his opinion, gas consumption in Ukraine will reach the indicators of February 2020. In this case, Naftogaz will not be able to cover the demand due to the deficit of imports from the European Union.

Kobolev predicted that with this development, Russia would stop transit through Ukraine and immediately terminate the current contract. This would mean that Kiev will lose billions of dollars in transit fees. He added that this would speed up the launch of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and encourage Gazprom to abandon Ukrainian transit with the “tacit consent” of Western countries.

Earlier on January 3, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin said that Russia is not obliged to supply all of Europe’s gas through Ukraine. On the morning of January 3, it was reported that the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine to Slovakia dropped sharply again – on January 2, it fell by almost 30%.

It is likely that Biden will attempt to weaponize the current gas flow situation to try and gain concessions from Russia during the negotiation process. However, as Biden portrays himself as a champion of human rights, he too will face pressure from the Russian side as his Ukrainian allies continue to violate international law by cutting the supply of water to civilians in Donbass.

In this way, although Zelensky secured US support in the unlikely event that Russia invades Ukraine, something that Moscow has stressed it has no interest in, he has put Biden in an awkward situation as his negotiation team will be forced to answer why Washington’s great ally is continually violating international law against Donbass civilians.

It is recalled that Kiev again violated the provisions of the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes in August 2021 by cutting the supply of water to Crimea. Therefore, the weaponization of water, in violation of international law and human rights, is a consistent strategy employed by Kiev against Donbass and Crimea, something that Biden’s negotiation team will struggle to defend during their discussions with the Russian side, and something that actually puts them in a weaker position in terms of postulating morality.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from epthinktank.eu

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video